IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2965 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kulvinder Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): 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 dated 07.07.2022, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.842 of 2017 titled as State of H.P. Vs. Sardari Lal. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner and fairly states that 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 six weeks in light of aforesaid judgment. 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. Liberty is reserve to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 07, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)