IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15783 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar …….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: Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that her client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation/appeal dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure P-12) is considered and decided by respondent No.4, 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 otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation/appeal, 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 and having taken note of the fact that representation/appeal filed by the petitioner is pending for more than two years, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondent No.4 to consider and decide the pending representation/appeal dated 24.04.2023 (Annexure P-12) of the petitioner 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 as well as other stakeholders and pass detailed speaking order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 09, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)