Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38233 (HP)

PRATAP THAKUR v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/20131/2025 · 2025-12-19

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20131 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.12.2025 __________________________________________________________ Dr. Pratap Thakur …….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: Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though in terms of judgment dated 13.01.2022 passed by this Court in CWP No.376 of 2022, petitioner has submitted representation to the competent authority, but till date, same has not been decided. He further states that though after his having filed representation, respondents vide communication dated 24.05.2022 called petitioner for personal hearing on 25.05.2022, but fact remains that till date, no speaking order has been passed. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though he has reason to presume and believe that representation filed by the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- petitioner must have been decided, but if not, same shall be decided expeditiously within a period of two weeks. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly the same is disposed of, with the direction to respondents to ensure that representation, if any filed in terms of judgment dated 13.01.2022 passed in previous case, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 19, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)