Disposed

Sheela Thakur v. the State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Dec 2024CWP/15799/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought direction to respondents to decide a pending representation in light of a prior Division Bench judgment. The court directed the authorities to consider and decide the representation expeditiously within six weeks, affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider and decide petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) expeditiously within six weeks, after affording opportunity of hearing.

Sheela Thakur Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:15500

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.15799 of 2024

¶4

Date of Decision: 21.12.2024

¶5

____________ ___________________________________________

¶6

Sheela Thakur …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents Coram:

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 alongwith connected matters, titled Taj Mohammad and others vs. State of H.P. and others , decided on 03.08.2023, in a time bound manner.

¶10

Learned Additional Advocate General, while putting

¶11

appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that if decision

¶12

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

¶14

2024:HHC:15500

¶15

on the aforesaid representation has been not taken, same shall be taken expeditiously.

¶16

Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in terms of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Taj Mohammad case (supra). 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 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.

¶17

December 21, 2024 (shankar)

Sheela Thakur v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela Thakur v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bayas Dev Vs Rohan Chand Thakur and Another

Tilak Raj Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Mangat Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

Budh Ram Vs the Hp State Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and Another

Dalip Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Kapil Thakur Vs Hpu and Others