IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19105 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Anil Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Rai and Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representations (Annexure P-42 and P-44) are considered and decided by the competent authority, in light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in M.S. Bindra Vs. Union of India, (1998) 7 SCC 310 as well as Office Memorandum dated 28.10.1969 (Annexure P-46), in a time bound manner. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representations, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 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 representations (Annexure P-42 & P-44) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two 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 detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in M.S. Bindra (supra) as well as Office Memorandum dated 28.10.1969 (Annexure P-46). 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 December 05, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)