Disposed¶13

Raj Mal and Another v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC24 Jul 2025CWP/11863/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Raj Mal and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.; CWP No.11863 of 2025; HP High Court Shimla; Justice Sandeep Sharma; representation (Annexure P-2) to be considered and decided in light of Mohit Sharma, CWP No. 1638 of 2024; petition disposed of without examining merits; four-week timeline; opportunity of hearing to be afforded; pending applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representation (Annexure P-2) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and passing appropriate orders thereafter; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶13

Raj Mal and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representation (Annexure P-2) in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma (supra).

¶9

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representation (Annexure P-2) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The authority concerned shall afford the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders thereafter while acting on the representation.

¶13

Key takeaways

The consideration and decision of the representation was to be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla — CWP No.11863 of 2025, decided 24.7.2025 (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral judgment). Petitioners Raj Mal and Anr. prayed that their representation (Annexure P-2) be considered by the respondents in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, Mohit Sharma & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., by which the same issue already stood adjudicated. Counsel for the respondents (Deputy Advocate General Ravi Chauhan) raised no objection to the prayer. Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks, affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and passing appropriate orders thereafter; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.11863of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.7.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Raj Mal and Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.

¶4

……...Petitioners Versus …....Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

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

¶7

For the Petitioners: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶8

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶9

Before reply, if any, called for from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. , states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench this Court in Mohit Sharma ( supra ) and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-2) in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

¶10

¶11

2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr.

¶12

Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided expeditiously.

¶13

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 representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-2) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra) , expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶14

July 24, 2025

¶15

(manjit)

¶16

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Raj Mal and Another v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Mal and Another 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Dass Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ratti Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Arvind Sharma Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Ors.

Maina Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Tula Ram and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Yadvinder Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others