IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 12289 of 2026 Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Suraj …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents ___________________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a very innocuous prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to issue directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending application dated 13.11.2025, whereby prayer has been made to grant of parole for 28 days. Since for quite long, no decision has been taken in the afore application filed by the petitioner, he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Having regard to the nature of dispute and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 on behalf of respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that decision, if not already taken on the afore application, shall be taken expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide application dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P-2) expeditiously, preferably within a period of ten days. 4. Needless to say, delay in decision upon the application, if any, filed by the convict for parole, defeats the very purpose for which parole is sought and as such, repeatedly Constitutional Courts have cautioned authority responsible for granting parole to decide the applications expeditiously and as such, this Court hopes and trusts that needful, as has been ordered in the instant case shall be done positively, within the time stipulated in the order. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 22, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)