Disposed¶12

Ram Lal v. Hrtc and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Oct 2025CWP/15799/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ram Lal v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation; CWP No.15799 of 2025; decided 07.10.2025; Sandeep Sharma, J.; HP High Court Shimla; disposal on consent without merits; time-bound direction (four weeks) to decide petitioner's case in light of Nek Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP No.3050 of 2014 (DB, judgment dated 17.07.2014); opportunity of hearing; speaking order; liberty reserved; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, in light of Nek Ram's case (CWP No.3050 of 2014, decided 17.07.2014), after affording him an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to pursue further proceedings if aggrieved; pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶12

Ram Lal Vs Hrtc and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition should be disposed of with a time-bound direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the judgment dated 17.07.2014 in CWP No.3050 of 2014 (Nek Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others).

¶6

Court's answer

Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, in light of Nek Ram's case (supra).

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The concerned authority, while acting on the direction, must afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order; liberty is reserved to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings if he remains aggrieved.

¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral) — CWP No.15799 of 2025, Ram Lal v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another, decided 07.10.2025: Petition disposed of without adverting to merits, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, in light of the Division Bench judgment dated 17.07.2014 in CWP No.3050 of 2014 (Nek Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others), on whose coverage of the petitioner's case counsel for the petitioner placed reliance and to which counsel for the respondents raised no objection. The deciding authority was required to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order; liberty was reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy if still aggrieved; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.15799 of 2025

¶3

Date of Decision:07.10.2025

¶4

____________ ___________________________________________ Ram Lal …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate.

¶5

____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on

¶6

instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 17.07.2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, tilted Nek Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner.

¶7

2. Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, while putting appearance

¶8

on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to

¶9

aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

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 case of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks in light of Nek Ram’s 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 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.

¶13

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶14

October 07`,2025 (shankar)

Ram Lal v. Hrtc and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lal v. Hrtc 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lucky and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Parkash Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Subhadra Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rajinder Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ramesh Chand Vs State of Hp and Others

Deepti and Ors. Vs Ashish Kohli