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

Vinod Kumar 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 expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order taking note of the Division Bench judgment in Sanjay Kumar (CWPOA No.5536 of 2020); liberty reserved to pursue further legal remedies if still aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation in light of the Division Bench judgment dated 01.11.2023 in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020 (Sanjay Kumar), 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 petitioner's pending representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.

Ratio / Principle

While acting on the representation, the concerned authority shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a detailed speaking order.

Key takeaways

The speaking order is to take note of the Division Bench judgment in Sanjay Kumar (supra), wherein the issue sought to be raised in these proceedings already stands adjudicated.ratio¶14
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if he remains aggrieved thereafter.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No.13519 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Sandeep Sharma, J.; decided 27.08.2025 orally) DISPOSED OF without adverting to merits, on the joint request of counsel. Direction issued to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-4/P-5) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and by passing a detailed speaking order taking note of the Division Bench judgment dated 01.11.2023 in Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, wherein the very issue already stands adjudicated. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.13519 of 2025

Date of Decision: 27.08.2025

_______________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner: Mr. Kishore Pundeer, 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-5) 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 27, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)