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

Pinki Sharma 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 Vinay Kumari's case (supra), after affording her an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

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 of the case, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-4) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Vinay Kumari's case (supra).

Ratio / Principle

The authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the order, shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing 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¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Sandeep Sharma, J.), CWP No.13085 of 2025, decided 14.08.2025 — Pinki Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh & another. On the petitioner's statement, on instructions, that her case was squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench judgment dated 06.08.2025 in CWP No.7990 of 2025, Vinay Kumari v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, and with respondents Nos. 1–4 not averse to the prayer, the Court disposed of the writ petition WITHOUT going into the merits, directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-4) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Vinay Kumari (supra). The concerned authority must afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order; liberty was reserved to her to move an appropriate court if still aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.13085 of 2025

Date of Decision: 14.08.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Pinki Sharma …….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. Anil Kumar Manget, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 06.08.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.7990 of 2025, titled Vinay Kumari 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.

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

2

2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Susheel Gautam, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively, fairly state that they are 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 Vinay Kumari’s 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 14,2025 (shankar)