Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6591 (HP)

KOYLA DEVI v. STATE OF HP AND ORS

CWP/2543/2025 · 2025-02-25

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:3456 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2543 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.02.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Koyla Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender Kumar, 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 her representation is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 titled Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. alongwith connected matters. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he 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 expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of her grievance (Annexure P-3), 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 representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Satya Devi (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four 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 speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. February 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2