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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without adjudicating merits, on the fair stand of both sides: petitioners may file a representation before the competent authority within two weeks; the authority shall decide it expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, in light of Inder Singh Thakur (CWP No.4830 of 2023), after affording a hearing and passing a detailed speaking order; liberty reserved to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Redressal of the petitioners' grievance, whose substance is not stated in the judgment; the Court records that the issue sought to be decided already stands adjudicated in CWP No.4830 of 2023 (Inder Singh Thakur).

Court's answer

Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file a representation before the competent authority within two weeks for redressal of their grievance.

Ratio / Principle

The representation, once filed, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, in light of the judgment in Inder Singh Thakur (CWP No.4830 of 2023, decided 07.04.2025).

Key takeaways

While deciding the representation, the authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a detailed speaking order taking note of the Inder Singh Thakur judgment.ratio¶10
Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if they still remain aggrieved.ratio¶10
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral) — CWP No.10955 of 2025, Ankita Thakur and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, decided 09.07.2025. Before notices could issue, counsel for the petitioners stated, on instructions, that the petitioners would be content if permitted to file a representation for redressal of their grievance, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide it in a time-bound manner in light of the judgment dated 07.04.2025 of a Coordinate Bench in CWP No.4830 of 2023, Inder Singh Thakur and Others v. State of H.P. and Others. The learned Additional Advocate General did not oppose this prayer and undertook that any representation would be considered and decided in accordance with that judgment. Disposing of the petition without going into the merits, the Court reserved liberty to the petitioners to file a representation within two weeks; the competent authority is to decide it expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, in light of Inder Singh Thakur (supra), affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order, since the issue sought to be adjudicated already stands decided therein. Liberty was reserved to the petitioners to institute appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.10955 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.07.2025

_______________________________________________________ Ankita Thakur and Others …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Ms. Nandita, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and 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 petitioners would be content and satisfied in case they are permitted to file representation for redressal of their grievance, with further direction to the respondents to consider and decide the same in light of judgment dated 07.04.2025 rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.4830 of 2023, titled as Inder Singh Thakur and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others , in a time bound manner.

While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he

is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the

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

2

petitioners and representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment.

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioners to file representation before the competent authority within a period of two weeks for redressal of their grievance, which in-turn, shall be decided by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks in light of Inder Singh Thakur (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 detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of aforesaid judgment, wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

July 09, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)