Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33306 (HP)

SANTOSH KUMARI v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/19819/2025 · 2025-12-16

Sandeep Sharma

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19819 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Smt. Santosh Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gutpa, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case her case is considered and decided in the light of judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in LPA No. 196 of 2022 titled as Roop Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents- State, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Deputy 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 judgments detailed hereinabove expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. 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 appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 4. December 16, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2