Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30019 (HP)

JAGAR NATH AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/17819/2025 · 2025-11-17

Sandeep Sharma

Civil Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17819 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.11.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Jagar Nath & Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case their representations are considered and decided in the light of judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 titled Sunder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. and Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022 titled Balo Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 2. Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy 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 petitioners. 2 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 representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-2 colly) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today in light of Sunder Singh and Balo Devi (supra). 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 appropriate orders thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. November 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge