Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28655 (HP)

LAL SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE HPSEBL AND ANOTHER

CWP/4809/2025 · 2025-04-04

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4809 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Lal Singh & others …….Petitioners Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners would be content and satisfied in case they are permitted to make representation to the respondents for redressal of their grievance, with the direction to the respondents to decide the same in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, 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. 3. Consequently, in view of afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and fair stand taken by learned counsel for 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 petitioners to file representation to the respondents within a period of one week, which in turn, shall be decided by the respondents within a period of six weeks. 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. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 04, 2025 (shankar)