2025:HHC:1669 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.611 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.01.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Gurcharan Kaur ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that despite petitioner having completed all necessary codal formalities, no steps are being taken by Jal Shakti Vibhag, Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, for installation of water connection. While referring to representation (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner, Mr. Jagat Pal, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that necessary fee was deposited in the year 2005, but on one pretext or the other, water connection is not being installed. 2025:HHC:1669 2 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that though he has reason to presume and believe that representation (Annexure P-2), filed by the petitioner, must have been taken to its logical end, but if not, same shall be considered expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court without commenting upon the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with the direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-2), filed by the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. 4. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, beside affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, shall also take note of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.2454 of 2019, titled Madan Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others and pass a speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Present petition stands disposed of, along with pending applications, if any. January 08, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge