IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15039 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ajeet Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, 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. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgments dated 18.07.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, titled Balo Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and judgment dated 8.03.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 to consider and decide the case of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 six weeks in light of Balo Devi and Sunder Singh’s cases (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. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 18,2025 (shankar)