IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4727 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dhan Bahadur …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P-8), in time bound manner. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol states that though present petition is not maintainable on account of involvement of disputed questions of facts 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 and law, however, pending representation filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, 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 the direction to respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P-8), 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 hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 14, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)