Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32070 (HP)

ANANT RAM v. HPSEBL AND ANR

CWP/16251/2025 · 2025-10-16

Sandeep Sharma

Special Leave Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16251 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Anant Ram …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sohail Khan, proxy counsel vice Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 16.04.2025 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.10719-10720 of 2025, titled The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another vs. Nanak Chand and others, and as such, he 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. 2. Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 case of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Nanak Chand case (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 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 16,2025 (shankar)