IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17637 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajiv Kumar Sondhi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his representation dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P-9), in a time bound manner. 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P-9)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 petitioners 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 03, 2025 (shankar)