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

Bodh Raj and Another 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 pending representation (Annexure P-7) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioners to pursue further remedies; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representation (Annexure P-7) in a time-bound manner, in light of the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Mohit Sharma (supra).

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-7) of the petitioners expeditiously.

Ratio / Principle

The consideration and decision of the representation is to be carried out preferably within a period of six weeks, in light of Mohit Sharma (supra).

Key takeaways

While doing the needful, the authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order on the representation.ratio¶13
Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if they still remain aggrieved; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP No.15051 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, decided 18.09.2025, Sandeep Sharma J., oral): Petitioners submitted that their case was squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench judgment dated 29.11.2024 in CWP No.1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others) and confined their prayer to time-bound consideration of their pending representation (Annexure P-7); the Additional Advocate General fairly did not oppose the innocuous prayer. HELD: Without going into the merits, petition disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioners to seek further appropriate remedies; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.15051 of 2025

Date of Decision: 18.09.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Bodh Raj & another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioners: Mr. Bhender Kumar Chaudhary, 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 petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners’ case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and as such, they would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-7) having been filed by the petitioners, in a time bound manner.

2. Mr. B.C.Verma learned Additional Advocate General,

while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states

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

2

that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.

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-7) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Mohit Sharma case (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 petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 18,2025

(shankar)