Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23904 (HP)

DOLMA BODH v. STATE OF HP AND ORS

CWP/13980/2025 · 2025-08-30

Satyen Vaidya

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13980 of 2025 Date of decision: 30.08.2025 Dolma Bodh. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral): Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by judgments passed in Madan Lal Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr1 and Prem Sukh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2. He further submits that the petitioner has already submitted a representation to the competent authority and copy of which has been placed on 1CWP No.3341 of 2019 decided on 04.09.2021. 2CWPOA No.6582 of 2019 decided on 06.10.2021 along with connected matters. -2- record as Annexure P-4. It is further submitted that the petitioner shall be satisfied at this stage, in case the respondents/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the representation Annexure P-4 of the petitioner in a time bound manner in light of the aforesaid judgments. 3. The prayer being innocuous is not opposed. 4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks, in light of judgments passed in Madan Lal Sharma (supra) and Prem Sukh (supra). Needless to say that in case the petitioner is found similarly situated, as the petitioners in aforesaid judgments, he shall also be granted the benefits as have been granted to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgments. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 30th August, 2024 Judge (Pardeep)