IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20363 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajat Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sourav Sharma & Mr. Rocky, Advocates. 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 General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 21.03.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2056 of 2023, titled Ghanshyam Dass and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not 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 representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Ghanshyam Dass 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 December 24, 2025 (shankar)