Disposed¶¶7

Brahmi Devi v. the State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Sept 2025CWP/14915/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Brahmi Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.; CWP No.14915 of 2025; decided 16.09.2025; Justice Sandeep Sharma; disposed without merits; representation Annexure P-2; reliance on Ranjit Singh, CWP No. 2500 of 2021 (Coordinate Bench); six-week timeline; opportunity of being heard; pending applications disposed of; counsel: Afreen Kaushal (for petitioner), Anup Rattan AG, Rajan Kahol AAG, B.C. Verma AAG, Ravi Chauhan DAG.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-2) in light of Ranjit Singh (supra), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording her an opportunity of being heard; pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶¶7

Brahmi Devi Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.14915 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.09.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Brahmi Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Afreen Kaushal, Advocate vice Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & 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. 2500 of 2021 titled Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. , states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench this Court in Ranjit Singh ( supra ) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

¶5

¶6

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 her representation.

¶7

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 Ranjit Singh (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 appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶8

September 16, 2025 (sunil)

¶9

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Brahmi Devi v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brahmi Devi v. the State of Hp and Another

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

Nirmala Devi and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kamal Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vinod Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pooja Pundir Vs the State of Hp and Others

Desh Raj Vs the Cskhpkvv

Dharm Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others