IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13762 of 2025 Date of decision: 27.08.2025 Anil Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus HRTC & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. D.K. Vashisht, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral): Notice. Mr. D.K. Vashisht, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redressal of her grievances raised in the writ petition. 3. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring representation within two weeks from today. In case such representation is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within a period 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya) 27th August, 2024 Judge (Pardeep)