Disposed¶¶5

Rakesh Kumar v. the State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Nov 2025CWP/17319/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP 17319/2025, HP High Court, Sandeep Sharma J., 07.11.2025: petition disposed without merits on consent; respondents directed to decide petitioner's representation (Annexure P-4) in light of Om Prakash, LPA No.54 of 2013, within six weeks, with hearing and speaking order; relies on State of H.P. v. Om Prakash; no statutory provisions discussed; no monetary quantum.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-4) in light of the judgment in Om Prakash (LPA No.54 of 2013), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶¶5

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.17319 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.11.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Mr. Rakesh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his representation is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.54 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. and others Vs. Om Prakash . 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously.

¶4

¶5

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, 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-4) in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Om Prakash (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.

¶6

November 07, 2025 (sunil)

¶7

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Rakesh Kumar v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar 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

Manisha Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Abhishek Choudhary Vs the State of Hp and Others

Suraj Singh Vs Hrtc and Others

Anupama Makhaik Vs the State of Hp and Others

Subhash Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sumit Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others