Joginder Singh Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Joginder Singh Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-2) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Ranjit Singh case (supra), after affording opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioner; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-2) in a time-bound manner in light of the Co-ordinate Bench judgment in Ranjit Singh (CWP No. 2500 of 2021).

Court's answer

Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-2) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of the Ranjit Singh case (supra).

Ratio / Principle

The authority deciding the representation shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order thereupon.

Key takeaways

Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if he still remains aggrieved.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition — disposal on consent without adjudication of merits — Joginder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, CWP No.16289 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla), Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral), decided 15.10.2025. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the case was squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench judgment dated 07.07.2023 in CWP No. 2500 of 2021, Ranjit Singh and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, and sought a direction to decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-2); the State (through the Additional Advocate General) raised no objection. The Court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Ranjit Singh case (supra), subject to affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty was reserved to the petitioner to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications were disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.16289 of 2025

Date of Decision: 15.10.2025

____________________________________ Joginder Singh	___________________ …….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and another	… Respondents
____________________________________ Coram:	___________________

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on

instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 07.07.2023 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2500 of 2021, titled Ranjit Singh and others vs.

State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected

matter, and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-2) having been filed by the petitioner, in a time bound manner.

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

2

2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

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 pending representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Ranjit Singh 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.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

October 15,2025 (shankar)