SURENDER SINGH AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER
CWP/8539/2025 · 2025-05-23
Sandeep Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4705 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4705 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8539 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Surender Singh & Anr.
……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
…....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case their case is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Division Bench this Court in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020 titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided expeditiously.
3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file representation before the competent authority within a period of three weeks for redressal of their grievances as have been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously within a period of six weeks in light of aforesaid judgment. 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 petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 23, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil)
Judge 2