IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20403 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sahil Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General 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’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and judgment dated 07.11.2024 passed in CWP No. 8839 of 2023, titled Pushap Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 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-5) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgments, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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-5) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Pushap Kumar, Mohit Sharma cases (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 29,2025 (shankar)