Disposed¶¶8

Desh Raj Thakur v. the State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC29 Oct 2025CWP/16833/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Desh Raj Thakur & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.; CWP No.16833 of 2025; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Justice Sandeep Sharma; decision 29.10.2025; petition disposed without merits relying on Coordinate Bench judgment Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024); respondents to consider representation (Annexure P-3) in light of Mohit Sharma within six weeks; opportunity of hearing and speaking order required; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representation (Annexure P-3) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording an opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order; pending applications disposed of. ¶¶8

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶8

Issue for consideration

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

¶¶4

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representation (Annexure P-3) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.

¶¶8

Ratio / Principle

The authority concerned, while acting on the instant order, shall afford the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and thereafter pass a speaking order.

¶¶8

Key takeaways

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.obiter¶¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral single-judge order (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandep Sharma, Judge), High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, dated 29.10.2025: writ petition CWP No.16833 of 2025 (Desh Raj Thakur & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.) was disposed of without going into the merits, before any reply from the respondents was received, on the strength of the Coordinate Bench judgment in CWP No.1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.), which had already adjudicated the same issue. Respondents' Deputy Advocate General confirmed he was not averse to the prayer. Respondents were directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representation (Annexure P-3) in light of the Mohit Sharma judgment, expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order thereafter; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.16833 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.10.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Desh Raj Thakur & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, 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)

¶4

Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioners, 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 of this Court in Mohit Sharma ( supra ) and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

¶5

While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that he is not

¶6

¶7

averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners with regard to disposal of their representation.

¶8

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 petitioners (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 petitioners and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶9

October 29, 2025 (sunil)

¶10

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Desh Raj Thakur v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Desh Raj Thakur v. the State of Hp and Another

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

Sapna Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kesang Wangchuk Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vinit Ramol Vs the State of Hp and Others

Anil Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Meena Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others

Neelma Vs the State of Hp and Another