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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of before notice without entering merits; respondents directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representations (Annexure P-1 Colly) in light of Mohit Sharma & Deepika Kumari (supra), expeditiously preferably within six weeks, with an opportunity of being heard and a speaking order; liberty reserved to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should consider and decide the pending representations of the petitioners in light of the adjudications by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohit Sharma and Deepika Kumari, in a time bound manner.

Court's answer

This Court disposed of the present petition without going into the merits of the case.

Ratio / Principle

Direction issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-1 Colly) in light of Mohit Sharma & Deepika Kumari (supra).

Key takeaways

The representations are to be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.ratio¶10
The authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereafter while doing the needful in terms of the instant order.ratio¶10
Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if they still remain aggrieved.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Writ Petition (CWP No.16109 of 2025, Anil Kumar and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another) disposed of orally by Hon'ble Sandeep Sharma, Judge, at the very outset — before any notice could issue to the respondents and without going into the merits. Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on adjudications by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma & Anr.) and CWP No.12954 of 2025 (Deepika Kumari & Ors.), prayed that the petitioners' pending representations (Annexure P-1 Colly) be considered and decided in a time-bound manner; counsel for the respondents (Additional Advocate General Mr. Vishal Panwar) stated he was not averse to the prayer. The Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the representations in light of the said judgments expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, to afford the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and to pass a speaking order thereafter; liberty was reserved to the petitioners to approach an appropriate forum if still aggrieved.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.16109 of 2025

Date of Decision: 14.10.2025

_______________________________________________________ Anil Kumar and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh &Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, 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. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Before notice, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, while inviting attention of this Court to judgments passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024 titled Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. and in CWP No.12954 of 2025, tiled Deepika Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench this Court in Mohit Sharma & Deepika Kumari (supra) and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide

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

2

the pending representations of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and representations, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided expeditiously.

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 representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-1 Colly) in light of Mohit Sharma & Deepika Kumari (supra), 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 being heard to the petitioners and pass speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

October 14, 2025 Manjit