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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without going into merits; respondents directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-3) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording her an opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma (CWP No. 1638 of 2024) within a time bound manner.

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed 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).

Ratio / Principle

The consideration and decision of the representation is to be done expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of the order.

Key takeaways

The authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the order, shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order thereafter.ratio¶¶9
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.16807 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral order dated 29.10.2025): Writ petition disposed of at the joint request of counsel, without entering into merits. Petitioner's counsel pointed out that the issue raised had already been adjudicated by a Coordinate Bench in Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., CWP No. 1638 of 2024, and sought a direction for disposal of her representation (Annexure P-3) in light thereof; the learned Additional Advocate General stated he was not averse to the prayer. Directing: respondents to consider and decide the representation in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order; pending applications disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.16807 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.10.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Neelma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of 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 of 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 her representation in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is

2

not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner with regard to disposal of her representation.

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 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.

October 29, 2025 (sunil)

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge