Gopal Chand Vs Hrtc and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Gopal Chand Vs Hrtc and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the Division Bench judgment dated 17.07.2014 in CWP No.3050 of 2014 (Nek Ram) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and passing appropriate orders; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if he still remains aggrieved; pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the Division Bench judgment dated 17.07.2014 in CWP No.3050 of 2014 (Nek Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others).

Court's answer

The issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court (judgment dated 17.07.2014 in CWP No.3050 of 2014, Nek Ram), and therefore no prejudice would be caused to either party if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of that judgment.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the aforesaid (Nek Ram) judgment expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, while affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and passing appropriate orders; liberty is reserved to the petitioner to pursue further appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gopal Chand v. HRTC and Another (CWP No.10975 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided 09.07.2025; Sandeep Sharma, J., oral): Before any notice could issue, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that his client would be content if directions were issued to the respondents to consider and decide his case in light of the Division Bench judgment dated 17.07.2014 in CWP No.3050 of 2014 (Nek Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others) in a time-bound manner; counsel for the respondents stated he was not averse to this prayer. Finding that the issue raised already stood adjudicated by the Division Bench, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of that judgment expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and passing appropriate orders; liberty was reserved to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stood disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.10975 of 2025

Date of Decision: 09.07.2025

_______________________________________________________ Gopal Chand …….Petitioner Versus HRTC and Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate.

____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant petition, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 17.07.2014, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others , in a time bound manner.

While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied

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

2

upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of 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 case of the petitioner in light of judgment supra.

Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case 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

July 09, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)