IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3065 of 2023 Date of Decision: 01.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Biram Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravinder Singh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) CMP No.18251 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The name of the applicant/petitioner, as mentioned in the memo of parties, shall be read as "Biram Singh." Ordered accordingly. 2. Registry to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties in terms of this order. Application stands disposed of. CWP No.3065 of 2025 3. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 10.04.2013 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1853 of 2009-D titled Arpana Bali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench this Court in Arpana Bali (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his case in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 4. 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. 5. 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 case of the petitioner in light of Arpana Bali (supra), 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 being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. August 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2