Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8286 (HP)

PUSHPA GUPTA v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/3387/2025 · 2025-03-12

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3387 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Pushpa Gupta ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P-9) having been filed by the petitioner, in light of judgment dated 4.9.2021, passed by this Court in CWP CWP No. 3341 of 2019, titled Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr., in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states - 2 - that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 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 representation (Annexure P-9) of the petitioner 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 petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 12, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge