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 (Annexure P-8) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of the Ghanshyam Dass and Inder Singh Thakur cases, affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-8) in a time-bound manner, in light of the coordinate-bench judgments in Ghanshyam Dass and Inder Singh Thakur.

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the writ petition without going into the merits, directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-8).

Ratio / Principle

The representation is to be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks, in light of the Ghanshyam Dass and Inder Singh Thakur cases (supra).

Key takeaways

While doing the needful in terms of the order, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order.ratio¶11
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if he still remains aggrieved.ratio¶11
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.14851 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided 15.09.2025 by Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral). Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, stated that the case was covered by the coordinate-bench judgments dated 21.03.2024 in CWP No.2056 of 2023 (Ghanshyam Dass and others v. State of H.P.) and dated 07.04.2025 in CWP No.4830 of 2023 (Inder Singh Thakur and others v. State of H.P.), and sought directions to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-8) in a time-bound manner. The Additional Advocate General for the respondents stated he was not averse to the prayer. Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of the Ghanshyam Dass and Inder Singh Thakur cases, affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved, and pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.14851 of 2025

Date of Decision: 15.09.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ 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. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 21.03.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2056 of 2023, titled Ghanshyam Dass and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and judgment dated 07.04.2025 passed in CWP No. 4830 of 2023 titled Inder Singh

Thakur and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matter, and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider

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

2

and decide the representation (Annexure P-8) having been filed by the petitioner, in a time bound manner.

2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

3. 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-8) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Ghanshyam Dass and Inder Singh Thakur’s cases (supra) . 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 a speaking order thereupon. 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

September 15,2025 (shankar)