Pankaj Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Hp and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pankaj Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Hp and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representation (Annexure P-3 Colly) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order in light of the judgment in CWP No.1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma); liberty reserved to the petitioners to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the competent authority should consider and decide the petitioners' pending representation (Annexure P-3 Colly) in light of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma and Another v. State of H.P. and Others).

Court's answer

Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representation (Annexure P-3 Colly) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

Ratio / Principle

While acting on the representation, the authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a detailed speaking order, taking note of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma (supra), wherein the issue already stands adjudicated.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if they still remain aggrieved after the representation is decided.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Writ Petition No.17397 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Sandeep Sharma, J., oral; decided 10.11.2025): Before notices could issue, petitioners' counsel stated on instructions that the petitioners would be content if their pending representation (Annexure P-3 Colly) were considered and decided by the competent authority in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in CWP No.1638 of 2024, Mohit Sharma and Another v. State of H.P. and Others; the learned Additional Advocate General raised no objection. The Court, without going into the merits, disposed of the petition directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order taking note of the Mohit Sharma judgment, wherein the issue sought to be agitated already stands adjudicated. Liberty was reserved to the petitioners to move an appropriate Court if still aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Civil Writ Petition No.17397 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.11.2025

Pankaj Kumar Thakur and Others ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Ms. Anuja Mehta, proxy counsel, for Mr. Khem Raj, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case their pending representation (Annexure P-3 Colly) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Others , in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment

2

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-3 Colly) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohit Sharma case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

November 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge