Disposed¶10

Gulabi Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Jul 2025CWP/10663/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gulabi Devi v. State of H.P., CWP No.10663 of 2025, decided 04.07.2025 (HP HC, Sandeep Sharma J.) — petition disposed of without merits; respondents directed to decide petitioner's case within six weeks in light of Full Bench ruling in Baldev, CWP No.2711 of 2017 (22.02.2022); hearing and speaking order mandated; liberty reserved. Statutes cited: none. Quantum: nil.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of the Baldev Full Bench judgment (CWP No.2711 of 2017), after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue further proceedings if aggrieved; pending applications disposed of. ¶10

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case in a time bound manner in light of the Full Bench judgment dated 22.02.2022 in CWP No.2711 of 2017 (Baldev vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others), by which the petitioner claims her case is squarely covered.

¶5

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of the Baldev Full Bench judgment.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order; liberty is reserved to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if she remains aggrieved.

¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral), CWP No.10663 of 2025, decided 04.07.2025 — Gulabi Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Counsel for the petitioner stated, on instructions, that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment dated 22.02.2022 of the same Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017 (Baldev vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others), and sought directions for consideration of her case accordingly; the Additional Advocate General fairly stated he was not averse to the prayer. Without entering the merits, the Court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of the Baldev judgment, affording her an opportunity of hearing and requiring a speaking order, with liberty reserved to seek further remedies if still aggrieved. Pending applications stood disposed of. No statutory provision was adjudicated and no monetary relief was granted.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.10663 of 2025

¶3

Date of Decision: 04.07.2025

¶4

____________ ___________________________________________ Gulabi Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 1 to 4. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 22.02.2022 passed by Full Bench of this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and as such, she would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner.

¶9

2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶10

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 case of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Baldev 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 petitioner and pass a 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.

¶11

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶12

July 04, 2025 (shankar)

Gulabi Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulabi Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dixit Mahant Vs the State of Hp and Others

Amit Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Uttam Sain Vs State of Hp and Others

Roshan Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others

Krishan Lal Vs the Hrtc and Others

Pabli Vs the State of Hp and Others