Disposed¶17

Santosh Kumari v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Aug 2025CWP/13225/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Representation; time-bound decision; direction to consider case in light of Sunder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, decided 8.3.2018); four weeks; opportunity of hearing; speaking order; pending applications disposed; CWP No.13225 of 2025; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Sandeep Sharma, J.; disposed without merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of Sunder Singh (supra) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after affording her an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶17

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.13225 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.8.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Santosh Kumari

¶4

……...Petitioner Versus

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

¶6

…....Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

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

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. B.R. Dhiman, Advocate.

¶10

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶11

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 8.3.2018, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, titled Sunder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide her representation in a time bound manner.

¶13

2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

the petitioner.

¶17

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 case of the petitioner in light of Sunder Singh (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 hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶18

August 19, 2025

¶19

(manjit)

¶20

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Santosh Kumari v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumari 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

Khem Chand Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs the Hpsebl

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pawan Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ghananand Sharma Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Joginder Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Others