2025:HHC:4910 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3085 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Nirmala Devi & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Aashima Premy, Proxy Counsel, vice Mr. Parkash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide their pending representations dated 9.10.2024(Annexure P-5 colly) in terms of judgment dated 11.07.2022 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.1166 of 2022, titled Hardeep Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:4910 2. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that representations, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be decided in accordance with law. 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 petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations 9.10.2024(Annexure P-5 colly) of the petitioners 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 hearing to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Hardeep Kumar’s case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 05, 2025 (shankar)