IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14689 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Hari Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notice, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his representation (Annexure P-6) is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 titled Sunder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., and judgment passed by Three-Judges Bench of this Court in CWP No.3598 of 2019, titled as Balo Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 28.09.2021, in a time bound manner 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents-State, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Deputy Advocate General, 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 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-6) in light of judgments detailed hereinabove expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 11, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)