IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2255 of 2024 Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sh. Ramesh Chand Soni …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before reply, if any, could be received from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client 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 Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6443 of 2021, titled as Babu Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, along with connected matters, in a time bound manner. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents/State fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Babu Ram (supra). 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 appropriate orders thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 25, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)