IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2973 of 2024 Date of Decision: 27.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Puran Chand Walia …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before reply, if any, could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case he is permitted to file representation for redressal of his grievance, with further direction to the respondents to consider and decide the same in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.7602 of 2010 titled as Om Parkash Vs. State of H.P. and Others, along with connected matters, in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment. 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 petitioner to file representation before the competent authority within a period of two weeks for redressal of his grievance, which in-turn, shall be decided by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks in light of Om Parkash (supra). 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 detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of aforesaid judgment, wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 27, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)