Disposed¶¶8

Rakesh Chand v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC28 Aug 2025CWP/13871/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP 13871 of 2025; Rakesh Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh; representation Annexure P-2; direction to decide representation in light of coordinate Bench judgment Mohit Sharma, CWP No. 1638 of 2024; time-bound disposal six weeks; opportunity of being heard; speaking order; disposed without going into merits; respondents not averse; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without entering into merits, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-2) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order; pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶¶8

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-2) in light of the coordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma (supra) in a time-bound manner.

¶¶5

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court deemed it fit to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-2) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra).

¶¶8

Key takeaways

The consideration and decision of the representation is to be carried out expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶¶8
The authority concerned, while acting in terms of the order, shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order thereafter.ratio¶¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP No. 13871 of 2025, decided 28.08.2025) — High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J.) — Petitioner sought directions to the respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-2) in light of the coordinate Bench decision in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma & Anr. v. State of H.P.), wherein the same issue stood adjudicated. Before replies were received, the learned Additional Advocate General stated he was not averse to the prayer. The Court, without going into the merits, disposed of the petition directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, subject to affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.13871 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.08.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Rakesh Chand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
__________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J .(Oral)_

¶4

Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs.

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. , states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench this Court in Mohit Sharma ( supra ) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his representation in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

¶6

¶7

While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner with regard to disposal of his representation.

¶8

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 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-2) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra) , expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶9

August 28, 2025 (sunil)

¶10

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Rakesh Chand v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Chand 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

Krishna Devi Vs the State of Hp and Another

Roop Singh Vs the Hpsfc and Others

Beli Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vishal Sood and Ors. Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Ors.

Natinder Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.