Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5069 (HP)

KAPIL DEV v. THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER

CWP/449/2025 · 2025-05-21

Sandeep Sharma

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.449 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kapil Dev ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 06.01.2021 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5764 of 2020, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Parwati Sharma and others, and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-4) having been filed by the petitioner in a time bound manner. 2 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Consequently, in view of 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 pending representation dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks in light of judgment (supra). 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 he still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge