Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27093 (HP)

KARAMCHAND AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/16762/2024 · 2025-02-25

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:3511 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.16762 of 2024 Date of Decision: 25.02.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Karam Chand and Others ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 pending representations dated 04.10.2024, 14.11.2024, 14.11.2024, 07.11.2024 and 11.11.2024 (Annexure P-3 Colly) of the petitioners, 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 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 2025:HHC:3511 2 petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations dated 04.10.2024, 14.11.2024, 14.11.2024, 07.11.2024 and 11.11.2024 (Annexure P-3 Colly) of the petitioners, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four 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 detailed 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. February 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge