IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13667 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.08.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Shakuntala Devi and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioners states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioners in light of judgments passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court in CWP No.5390 of 2024, titled as Surya Prabha & Ors. Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 28.05.2025 and judgment dated 07.07.2023, passed in CWP No.2500 of 2021, titled as Ranjit Singh and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others, in time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioners. 2. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 judgments rendered by the Coordinate Benches of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgments. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-3 Colly) in light of Surya Prabha and Ranjit Singh (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks from today. In case, petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgments, they would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass speaking order thereupon. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 26, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)