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

Anu Pathania 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-4) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Mohit Sharma case (supra), affording her an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to pursue further proceedings if aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-4) in a time-bound manner.

Court's answer

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-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks, in light of Mohit Sharma case (supra).

Ratio / Principle

While doing the needful in terms of the order, the authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if she still remains aggrieved.ratio¶11
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No.12877 of 2025, decided 11.08.2025) by Anu Pathania v. State of Himachal Pradesh & another, before Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral), disposed of at the threshold without entering the merits. Petitioner asserted that her case was squarely covered by a Co-ordinate Bench decision in Mohit Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided 29.11.2024) and confined her prayer to a time-bound decision on her pending representation (Annexure P-4); the State, through its Additional Advocates General, was not averse to the prayer. The Court directed the competent authority to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty was reserved to her to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications were disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.12877 of 2025

Date of Decision: 11.08.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Anu Pathania …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … 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. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on

instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma and another 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 decide the representation (Annexure P-4) having been filed by the petitioner, in a time bound manner.

2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,

while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states

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

2

that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

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 pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Mohit Sharma 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.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

August 11,2025

(shankar)