Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4649 (HP)

MANJULA v. STATE OF HP AND ORS

CWP/7347/2025 · 2025-05-05

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7347 of 2025 Date of Decision: 5.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Manjula ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 3.8.2023, passed in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states - 2 - 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 petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner in light of Taj Mohammad (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 hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 5, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge