IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.18015 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Upasana Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-1) in terms of judgment dated 10.04.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No.1853 of 2009, titled Arpana Bali versus the State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy 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 representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided 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-1) 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 thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by this Court in Arpana Bali’s case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 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 21, 2025 (shankar)