Disposed¶10

Hing Raj v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC14 Oct 2025CWP/16083/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HP High Court, CWP No.16083 of 2025, Hing Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided 14.10.2025 by Sandeep Sharma, J.: petition disposed without going into merits; respondents directed to decide petitioner's representation (Annexure P-2) per Madan Lal Sharma, CWP No.3341 of 2019, within six weeks, with opportunity of hearing and speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-2) in light of Madan Lal Sharma (supra) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶10

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.16083 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.10.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Hing Raj ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate.

¶4

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his representation is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.3341 of 2019 titled Madan Lal Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

¶7

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 and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously.

¶8

¶9

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without

¶10

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 Madan Lal Sharma (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 speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶11

October 14, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge

Hing Raj v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hing Raj v. the State of Hp and Others

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

Kamla Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Reena Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Surender Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Abhishek Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Amandeep Kaushal Vs the State of Hp and Another

Shashi Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others