BALDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
CWP/4703/2025 · 2025-05-14
Sandeep Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24592 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24592 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4703 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Baldev Singh and Another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case their case is considered and decided in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017 titled as Taj Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner.
2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and case of the petitioners shall be 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with aforesaid
judgment.
3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of Taj Mohammad (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 14, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)