Disposed¶9

Hans Raj v. the State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Nov 2025CWP/17977/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Threshold disposal on consent; direction to decide pending representation (Annexure P-3) within six weeks per Coordinate Bench ruling in Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024); hearing and speaking order mandated; liberty to revive grievance; no merits examined; no statute construed; single-judge bench, Justice Sandeep Sharma; decision dated 20.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without examining merits; respondents directed to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in accordance with the Mohit Sharma judgment (CWP No.1638 of 2024), after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue further appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) should be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with the Coordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024), the substantive issue raised in the petition having already been adjudicated therein.

¶9

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 petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a detailed speaking order taking note of the Mohit Sharma judgment (supra), wherein the issue sought to be decided in these proceedings already stands adjudicated.

¶9

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if he still remains aggrieved.obiter¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Sandeep Sharma, J.) disposed of CWP No.17977 of 2025 (Hans Raj v. State of H.P. & Anr.) at the threshold, without examining merits, on counsel's unopposed prayer. Direction issued to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in accordance with the Coordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma v. State of H.P., CWP No.1638 of 2024, wherein the very issue sought to be agitated already stands adjudicated. The deciding authority must afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a detailed speaking order. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.17977 of 2025

¶3

Date of Decision: 20.11.2025

¶4

_______________________________________________________ Hans Raj …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Suresh Singh Saini and Ms. Sonia Saini, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation (Annexure P-3) 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.

¶5

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the

¶6

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶7

¶8

petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment

¶9

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) of the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.

¶10

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶11

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶12

November 20, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)

Hans Raj v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hans Raj 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

Paramjeet Singh Vs the Hrtc and Others

Kehar Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Satya Pal Vs State of Hp and Others

Kapil Dev Vs State of Hp and Others

Controller of Stores Northern Railways Vs M/S Cbm Industries Private Ltd. and Another

Arjun Dass Vs the State of Hp and Others