Disposed¶3

Shashi Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC14 Oct 2025CWP/16089/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HP High Court Shimla; CWP No.16089 of 2025; Shashi Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh; Justice Sandeep Sharma; representation Annexure P-3 to be decided in light of Mohit Sharma (CWP No. 1638 of 2024); four-week timeline; opportunity of hearing; petition disposed, not decided on merits; decision date 14.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-3) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. ¶3

Shashi Kumar 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.16089 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.10.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Shashi Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________

¶4

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

Before reply, if any, could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. , states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench this Court in Mohit Sharma ( supra ) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

¶6

¶7

2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶8

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 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra) , expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶9

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

Shashi Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Kumar 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

Kirna Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others