Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25470 (HP)

PROMIL KUMAR v. THE HRTC AND ANOTHER

CWP/14841/2025 · 2025-09-15

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14841 of 2025 Date of Decision:15.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Promil Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 17.07.2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, tilted Nek Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-2) in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly state that representation of the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks in light of Nek Ram’s case (supra). Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 15,2025 (shankar)