IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 20675 of 2025 Date of Decision: September 10, 2026 _______________________________________________________ Nazar Ali …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case, directions are issued to respondents/competent authority to decide pending representations of the petitioner in a time bound manner. 2. Consequently, in view of above, without going into the merits of case, present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents/ competent authority to decide pending representations of petitioner, Annexures P-2 to 5, within three weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing needful, shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a detailed order thereupon, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already completed entire work. All pending applications stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 10, 2026; (vikrant) 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?