Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7533 (HP)

AMIT LAKHANI v. THE UOI AND ANOTHER

CWP/2810/2025 · 2025-02-28

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:3848 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2810 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.02.2025 _______________________________________________________ Amit Lakhani …….Petitioner Versus Union of India & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Ragini Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Since application having been filed by the petitioner for re-issuance of passport bearing file No. CH207000449624 is not being considered by respondent No.2, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Having regard to the nature of the prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, there appears to be no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, who fairly states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now application must have been considered, if not, same shall be decided expeditiously. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:3848 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to take final decision on the application (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner for re- issuance of passport, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously preferably within a period of two weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge February 28, 2025 (shankar)