Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5802 (HP)

GAYANI DEVI v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/1089/2025 · 2025-02-24

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:3231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.1089 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.02.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Gayani Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Verma, 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) Learned counsel representing the petitioner on instructions states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered by Principal Division Bench of this Court in case titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, CWP No.2274 of 2021, along with connected matters, in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that he is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 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 2025:HHC:3231 2 petition with the direction to respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed in Satya Devi’s case (supra) in time bound manner, 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 being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. February 24, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge