Devender Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Devender Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without examining merits; respondents directed to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representation (Annexure P-6) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024), after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representation (Annexure P-6) in a time bound manner, in view of the claimed coverage by the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024).

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representation (Annexure P-6) expeditiously.

Ratio / Principle

The decision on the representation was directed preferably within a period of six weeks, in light of the Mohit Sharma decision (CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided 29.11.2024) of the Co-ordinate Bench.

Key takeaways

The authority concerned, while acting in terms of the order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order on the representation.ratio¶¶11
Liberty was reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if they still remain aggrieved; pending applications, if any, also stood disposed of.ratio¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP No.18839 of 2025, HC of Himachal Pradesh, Sandeep Sharma, J., 02.12.2025) — Direction to decide pending representation — Petitioners, on instructions, submitted that their case was 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 prayed for directions to the respondents to consider and decide their representation (Annexure P-6) in a time bound manner. The Additional Advocate General fairly stated he was not averse to the prayer. Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), subject to affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty was reserved to the petitioners to seek further remedies if still aggrieved, and pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.18839 of 2025

Date of Decision: 02.12.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Devender Kumar & others …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Mr. H.R.Sidhu, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners’ 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, they would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-6) having been filed by the petitioners, 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 petitioners.

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-6) of the petitioners 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 petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon. 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.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

December 02,2025 (shankar)