Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9579 (HP)

KAMLESH KUMARI v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/4143/2025 · 2025-03-24

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4143 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kamlesh Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Salochna Rana, 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 representing 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 her representation dated 12.1.2025 (Annexure P-2) in light of judgment dated 13.12.2012, passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 105 of 2010, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Rakesh Chand (alongwith connected matters), in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in 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 representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of three 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 24, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge