Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2538 (HP)

LOBHI RAM v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/21107/2025 · 2026-01-06

Sandeep Sharma

Civil Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.21107 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Lobhi Ram …….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. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant proceedings, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in the light of judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 titled Sunder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. and Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 titled Balo Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., in 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 petitioner and case of the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law expeditiously. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 case of the petitioner 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. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 06, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)