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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without entering merits; respondents directed to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-5) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of the Mohit Sharma case; opportunity of hearing and a speaking order mandated; liberty reserved to pursue further proceedings if aggrieved; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-5) in a time-bound manner.

Court's answer

Without going into the merits, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-5) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks, in light of the Mohit Sharma case.

Ratio / Principle

The authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if he still remains aggrieved.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Baldev Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, CWP No.18053 of 2025, decided on 21.11.2025 by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral): On the learned counsel's statement that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench judgment dated 29.11.2024 in CWP No.1638 of 2024, Mohit Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, and the Additional Advocate General's fair statement of no 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 (Annexure P-5) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of the Mohit Sharma case. The authority concerned is to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order; liberty is reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.18053 of 2025

Date of Decision: 21.11.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Baldev Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Dutt Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on

instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-5) having been filed by the petitioner, in a time bound manner.

2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,

while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states

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

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-5) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Mohit Sharma 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 he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

November 21,2025 (shankar)