IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6991 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Jagdish Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 28.07.2010 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others with connected matters and judgment dated 28.07.2021 passed by this Court in CWP No. 2802 of 2019, titled Bhupeshwar Dutt vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 pending representation (Annexure P-6) in light of aforesaid judgments, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that representation of the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be 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 representation (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks in light of judgments (supra). 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 he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 22, 2025 manjit