VISHAL GUPTA AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
CWP/15924/2024 · 2025-01-10
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 26293 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 26293 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.15924 of 2024
Decided on: 10th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vishal Gupta and others
…..Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and another
.....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, name of respondent No.2 is ordered to be corrected. The same be read as ‘Director Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh’ instead of ‘Director Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh’. Similarly, name of respondent No.3 is also ordered be corrected. The same be read as ‘Deputy Director Higher Education, Solan, District Solan’ instead of ‘Deputy Director Elementary Education, Solan, District Solan’.
1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
2
2.
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon; Petitioners have filed a representation dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-7) for the redressal of their grievances raised in the writ petition, but till date the same has not been adjudicated upon; Petitioners would be satisfied in case competent authority is directed to decide the representation in accordance with law within a time bound schedule.
The above is not objected to by learned Additional Advocate General.
4.
In view of the above, this writ petition is
disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The
order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners.
3
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 10, 2025
Judge Mukesh