Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28245 (HP)

SHANTA DEVI AND ORS v. STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER

CWP/2040/2025 · 2025-03-24

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2040 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Smt. Shanta Devi 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. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with 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 appearing for the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners’ case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 3.8.2023, passed in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and as such, they would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide their representations (Annexure P- 2 Colly.), in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states - 2 - 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 petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representations (Annexure P-2 Colly.) of the petitioners in light of Taj Mohammad (supra) expeditiously, 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 24, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge