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

Inder Pal and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others — 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 representations (Annexure P-1 Colly) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024); liberty reserved to the petitioners to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

What relief the petitioners are entitled to in respect of the matters covered by their pending representations (Annexure P-1 Colly) — an issue the Court records as already adjudicated by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohit Sharma (supra).

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 representations (Annexure P-1 Colly) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

Ratio / Principle

While deciding the representations, the competent authority shall afford the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and pass a detailed speaking order taking note of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma (supra).

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if they still remain aggrieved; the merits of the controversy were left open.obiter¶8
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Writ Petition No.17707 of 2025 (Inder Pal and Another v. State of H.P. and Another), decided 14.11.2025 by Sandeep Sharma, J.: Before notices could issue, counsel for the petitioners stated that his clients would be content if their pending representations (Annexure P-1 Colly) were considered and decided by the competent authority in a time-bound manner in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma and Another v. State of H.P. and Others, CWP No.1638 of 2024; the Additional Advocate General raised no objection. The Court, without going into the merits, disposed of the petition directing the respondents to decide the representations expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording the petitioners a 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, stand disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Civil Writ Petition No.17707 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.11.2025

Inder Pal and Another ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, 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 representations (Annexure P-1 Colly) are 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.

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 representations, 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 representations (Annexure P-1 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 14, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge

Judge