Reema Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Reema Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-2) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording her an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order in light of the Mohit Sharma judgment; pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue further remedies if aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the competent authority should consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-2) in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in CWP No.1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma).

Court's answer

Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-2) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a detailed speaking order taking note of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma case (supra), wherein the same issue already stands adjudicated.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if she still remains aggrieved.obiter¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Before notices were issued, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that his client would be content if her pending representation (Annexure P-2) were considered and decided by the competent authority in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in CWP No.1638 of 2024, Mohit Sharma and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Others. The State's counsel did not object. A Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court (Sandeep Sharma, J.) disposed of the writ petition without going into merits, directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording the petitioner a hearing and by a detailed speaking order taking note of the Mohit Sharma judgment, wherein the same issue already stands adjudicated. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.13713 of 2025

Date of Decision: 26.08.2025

_______________________________________________________ Reema Devi …….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. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, 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 her pending representation (Annexure P-2) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Others, in a time bound manner.

Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the

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

2

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-2) 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 Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohit Sharma 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 she still remains aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

August 26, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge