Rakesh Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rakesh Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-5) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing and by a detailed speaking order in light of the coordinate bench judgment in Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024); liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-5) should be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with the judgment of the coordinate bench in Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024), the underlying issue having already been adjudicated in that judgment.

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

Key takeaways

The authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a detailed speaking order taking note of the coordinate bench judgment in Mohit Sharma (supra), wherein the issue sought to be raised already stands adjudicated.ratio¶11
Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if he remains aggrieved.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.10509 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Sandeep Sharma, J.; decided 02.07.2025): Writ petition disposed of at the threshold, without notices being issued and without entering into merits. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, sought only that the pending representation (Annexure P-5) be considered and decided by the competent authority in light of the coordinate bench judgment in Mohit Sharma and Another v. State of H.P. (CWP No.1638 of 2024); learned Additional Advocate General raised no objection. Directing: the competent authority to decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order taking note of the Mohit Sharma judgment, wherein the issue already stands adjudicated; liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach an appropriate forum if still aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.10509 of 2025

Date of Decision: 02.07.2025

_______________________________________________________ Rakesh Chand …….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. M.A. Safee, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Before notices, 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 his pending representation (Annexure P-5) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Others, in a time bound manner.

Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General,

fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made

on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2

petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment

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-5) of the petitioner 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 hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohit Sharma case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 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

July 02, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)