IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4255 of 2024 Date of Decision: 26.06.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Archana Mahajan ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No. 7526 of 2021 titled Laiq Ram Sharma and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, alongwith connected matters, further upheld by Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No. 356 of 2024, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Kartar Chand alongwith connected matters, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the afore judgments and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation (Annexure P-9) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgments in a time bound manner. 2 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 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 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-9) in light of afore judgments expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. June 26, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Manjit Judge