IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.899 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Dr. Banti Kumar …….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. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocates General for respondent No.1. Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before notice, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-14) of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 21.03.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2056 of 2023, titled Ghanshyam Dass and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, while appearing on behalf of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondents No.1 and 2 fairly state that they are not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgment supra. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-14) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 appropriate orders thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 09, 2026 (shankar)