IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1295 of 2025 Date of Decision: 4.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Vijay Pal and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Proxy Counsel. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representations (Annexure P-8 Colly.) having been filed by the petitioners in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, 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 petitioners. 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 - 2 - petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations (Annexure P-8 Colly.) of the petitioners, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 4, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge