BHOPINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
CWP/15121/2025 · 2025-09-19
Sandeep Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 25709 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 25709 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15121 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Bhopinder Singh & Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case their representations are considered and decided in the light of
judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 54 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. and others Vs. Om Prakash.
2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided expeditiously.
3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that
petitioners have already filed representation for redressal of their grievance (Annexure P-6), 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 representations of the petitioners in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Om Prakash (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. 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 petitioners and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. September 19, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil)
Judge 2