IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1641 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Desh Raj ……...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. Bodh Raj Thakur, Advocate. 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, for the State. Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 23.7.2024 (Annexure P-2) having been filed by the petitioner in light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors. alongwith connected matters (2015) 4 SCC 334 and judgment dated 24.3.2022, passed by this Court in CWPOA No. 3145 - 2 - of 2019, titled S.S. Choudhary v. State of Himachal Pradesh alongwith connected matters, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, 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-2) of the petitioner in light of afore 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