2025:HHC:1674 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.583 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.01.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sudarshan Jaspa ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to appellate authority i.e. respondent No. 1 to decide the appeal No. 16 of 24 titled Sudarshan Jaspa Vs. DRCS Mandi expeditiously. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that since the appeal has been filed on 23.12.2024, as such, there is no justification to issue direction to afore authority to decide the appeal expeditiously. However, learned Additional Advocate was unable to dispute that prayer made on behalf of petitioner for staying the operation of order laid challenge in the appeal, came to be rejected. If it is so, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that delay in disposal of appeal, if permitted would render the appeal infructuous and work of the society will also suffer. 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 appellate authority, as detailed hereinabove, to decide the appeal, expeditiously, preferably on or before 28.02.2025. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as stake holders and pass speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. January 08, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2