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

Veena Chauhan 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 petitioner's pending representation dated 16.11.2024 (Annexure P-6) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Taj Mohammad (supra), after affording her an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 16.11.2024 (Annexure P-6) in a time bound manner, in light of the judgment in Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh.

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 pending representation (Annexure P-6) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Taj Mohammad (supra).

Ratio / Principle

The authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order while deciding the representation in terms of the instant order.

Key takeaways

Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if she still remains aggrieved; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Veena Chauhan v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., CWP No.1685 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, decided 10.3.2025) — Sandeep Sharma, J. On the learned counsel's statement that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by the judgment dated 3.8.2023 in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 (Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh), and the respondents' non-objection, the Court disposed of the writ petition without going into the merits, directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 16.11.2024 (Annexure P-6) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Taj Mohammad (supra), after affording her an opportunity of hearing and by a speaking order, with liberty reserved to seek further remedies if aggrieved.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.1685 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.3.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Veena Chauhan

……...Petitioner Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

…....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. V.B. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on

instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 3.8.2023, passed in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and as such, she would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 16.11.2024 (Annexure P-6) having been filed by the petitioner in a time bound manner.

2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states

2 -

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-6) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Taj Mohammad 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 she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

March 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge