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

Prashant Thakur and Others 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 petitioners' pending representation (Annexure P-4) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order in light of the Mohit Sharma judgment; liberty reserved to the petitioners to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners' pending representation (Annexure P-4) should be considered and decided by the competent authority in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024), in a time bound manner.

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondents.

Ratio / Principle

The respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representation (Annexure P-4) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

Key takeaways

While deciding the representation, the authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a detailed speaking order taking note of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma case (supra).ratio¶7
Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if they still remain aggrieved.ratio¶7
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition — Disposal without adjudicating merits — At a pre-notice stage, petitioners' counsel stated on instructions that the clients would be content if their pending representation (Annexure P-4) were decided by the competent authority in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Others, CWP No.1638 of 2024; the State's Additional Advocate General raised no objection. The Court, without going into merits, disposed of the petition directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order taking note of the Mohit Sharma judgment, wherein the issue already stands adjudicated; liberty reserved to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Civil Writ Petition No.16099 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.10.2025

Prashant Thakur and Others ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case their pending representation (Annexure P-4) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Others , in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment

2

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-4) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six 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 petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohit Sharma case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 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.

October 15, 2025

Rajeev Raturi

(Sandeep Sharma),

Judge