IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7833 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sanjay Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) CMP NO. 10227 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay in refiling the petition is condoned. Application stands disposed of. CWP No.7833 of 2025 2. Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his representation is considered and decided in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017 titled as Taj Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation of the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with aforesaid judgment. 4. 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 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) in light of Taj Mohammad (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four 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 petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 29, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2