ARTI SOOD AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
CWP/1080/2025 · 2025-02-24
Sandeep Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 5606 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 5606 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1080 of 2025
Date of Decision: 24.2.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Arti Sood and Ors.
……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma and Mr. Ranbir Rathore, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations (Annexure P-4) of the petitioners in light of judgment dated 1.11.2023 passed in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020 titled Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (along with connected matters), in a time bound manner.
2.
Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states
- 2 - that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.
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 the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations (Annexure P-4) of the petitioners in terms of afore judgment, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. February 24, 2025
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge