IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16509 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ms. Mindo Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, proxy counsel, for Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, for State. Mr. Balvinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that her client would be content and satisfied in case her pending representation (Annexure P-4) is considered and decided by the competent authority, in a time bound manner. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Balvinder Singh, Advocate, who while 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly state that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 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-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four 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. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 10, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)