IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1699 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Joginder Paul ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashish Verma and Mr. Hem Raj Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Ratatn, 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 petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 17.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) having been filed by the petitioner in light of judgment dated 26.12.2019 passed in CWPOA No. 195 of 2019, titled Sheela Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and judgment dated 12.11.2024, passed in LPA No. 338 of 2024, titled Naryan Dutt Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. alongwith connected cases, in a time bound manner. - 2 - 2. Mr. B.C. Verma, 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 petitioner. 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 pending representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgments 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 petitioner and pass a 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. March 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge