Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33663 (HP)

SURENDER KUMAR SHARMA AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER

CWP/19847/2025 · 2025-12-16

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19847 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Surender Kumar Sharma & Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide their representations (Annexure P-6 colly) in light of CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020, titled as Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (alongwith connected matters) decided on 1.11.2023, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 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 representations (Annexure P-6 colly) of the petitioners in light of Sanjay Kumar (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 hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 16, 2025 (shankar)