Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9875 (HP)

SUBASH CHAND MAHAJAN v. THE HRTC AND ANOTHER

CWP/4251/2025 · 2025-03-25

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4251 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Subhash Chand Mahajan …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 07.11.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.8670 of 2023, titled Himachal Road Transport Corporation versus Brij Lal and others and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-4) having been filed by the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Brij Lal case (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 petitioners 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 March 25,2025 (shankar)