Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36207 (HP)

SUNITA JINGTA v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/17495/2025 · 2025-11-11

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17495 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.11.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sunita Jingta …….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. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Though prima facie this Court is of the view that present petition is not maintainable, but before notices in the instant proceedings could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case representation, having been filed by her (Annexure P-4), is ordered to be decided by the competent authority, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of respondents, states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably, within a period 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of two weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon taking note of the fact that petitioner herein, who was accused of committing theft, has been already exonerated on account of the fact that person, who actually had stolen the cash and articles from the rooms of IGMC, stands apprehended. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 11, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)