IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.18153 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Chander Gian Mehta …….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. Viveka Nand, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates 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 representation (Annexure P-6) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.21 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. and Others Vs. Ravinder Kumar, along with connected matters, and judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.1695 of 2019, titled as Ajay Kumar Thakur and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Another, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgments. 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 representation (Annexure P-6) 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 and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgments rendered by this Court in Ravinder Kumar and Ajay Kumar Thakur (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stand adjudicated. 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 09, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)