IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15476 of 2024 Date of Decision: 8.01.2025 _______________________________________________________ Amar Chand and Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. Narender Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioners states that the petitioners would be content and satisfied in case respondents are directed to decide their representation in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent State is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 representation of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while complying with the direction made in the instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass speaking order. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court of law if they still remain aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 8, 2025 Manjit