IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2749 of 2020 Date of Decision: 10.10.2025 __________________________________________________________ Hussan Mohammad …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): CMP No.24201 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and with the consent of parties, case at hand is taken up for hearing today itself. Application stands disposed of. CWP No.2749 of 2020 2. Before reply, if any, could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner while referring to the judgment dated 16.05.2019, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.371 of 2019, titled as Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, along with connected matters, states that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 already stands adjudicated in the afore case. He states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, 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 case of the petitioner in light of Surinder Kumar case (supra), 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 being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order taking note of judgment, as detailed hereinabove. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 10, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)