Sohan Singh Vs State of Hp and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sohan Singh Vs State of Hp and Anr. — 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 the judgment dated 01.11.2023 in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020 (Sanjay Kumar), after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order; liberty reserved to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-4) should be considered and decided by the competent authority in a time bound manner in light of the judgment dated 01.11.2023 in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020 (Sanjay Kumar).

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-4) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.

Ratio / Principle

While doing the needful, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a detailed speaking order taking note of the Division Bench judgment in Sanjay Kumar (CWPOA No.5536 of 2020), wherein the issue sought to be decided already stands adjudicated.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if he still remains aggrieved.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Justice Sandeep Sharma, oral order, decided 21.08.2025) — CWP No.13421 of 2025, Sohan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another. Before notices could issue, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, stated that his client would be content if his pending representation (Annexure P-4) were considered and decided by the competent authority in a time bound manner in light of the judgment dated 01.11.2023 passed by the Division Bench in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others; the Additional Advocate General stated he was not averse to this innocuous prayer. Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order taking note of the Sanjay Kumar judgment, wherein the issue sought to be decided in these proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty reserved to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.13421 of 2025

Date of Decision: 21.08.2025

_______________________________________________________ Sohan Singh …….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. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation (Annexure P-4) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment dated 01.11.2023, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others , in a time bound manner.

Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made

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

2

on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment

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. 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 detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

August 21, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)

Digitally signed by RAJEEV RAJEEV RATURI RATURI Date: 2025.08.2117:02:33 +0530