IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.18913 of 2025 Date of Decision: 3.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mukesh and Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before notice, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, while inviting attention of this Court to judgments passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024 titled Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. and in CWP No.12954 of 2025, tiled Deepika Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench this Court in Mohit Sharma & Deepika Kumari (supra) and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the pending representations of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and representations, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 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 representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-4 Colly) in light of Mohit Sharma & Deepika Kumari (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 3, 2025 Manjit