IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5511 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Surjit Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Urvashi Rajta, Ms. Tara Devi and Ms. Arushi Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 27.11.2021 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.3435 of 2020, titled Satish Kumar and others 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 the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 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 petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks in light of Satish Kumar’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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 16,2025 (shankar)