Chitra Rajta and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Chitra Rajta and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representations (Annexure P-2 Colly) in light of Mohit Sharma and Deepika Kumari (supra), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording an opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioners to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representations in a time bound manner in light of the judgments in Mohit Sharma and Deepika Kumari (supra).

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-2 Colly) in light of Mohit Sharma and Deepika Kumari (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

Ratio / Principle

While doing the needful, the authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereafter; liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if they still remain aggrieved.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No.14701 of 2025) disposed of before notice and without adverting to the merits. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention to Co-ordinate Bench judgments in Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024) and Deepika Kumari (CWP No.12954 of 2025) and submitted that the issue raised already stood adjudicated, seeking only a direction to decide the petitioners' pending representations in a time bound manner in light of those judgments. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State stated no aversion to the prayer. The Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the representations (Annexure P-2 Colly) in light of Mohit Sharma and Deepika Kumari, expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order; liberty was reserved to the petitioners to institute appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved. Pending applications stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma, J.; decided 11.09.2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.14701 of 2025

Date of Decision: 11.09.2025

_______________________________________________________ Chitra Rajta and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents : 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 notice, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, while inviting attention of this Court to judgments passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024 titled Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. and in CWP No.12954 of 2025, tiled Deepika Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench this Court in Mohit Sharma & Deepika Kumari (supra) and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide

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

2

the pending representations of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and representations, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided expeditiously.

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 representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-2 Colly) in light of Mohit Sharma & Deepika Kumari (supra), 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 being heard to the petitioners and pass speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

September 11, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)