IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1777 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Parvesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case he is permitted to make representation to the respondents for redressal of his grievance in terms 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, with the direction to the respondents to decide the same in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided in accordance with law. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Consequently, in view of afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and fair stand taken by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file representation to the respondents within a period of one week, praying therein for consideration of his case in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Taj Mohammad case (supra), which in turn, shall be decided by the respondents within a period of eight weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 12,2025 (shankar)