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

Mukesh 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 to consider and decide the petitioners' representations (Annexure P-4 Colly) in light of Mohit Sharma and Deepika Kumari (supra), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording an opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioners to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should be issued to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representations in light of the coordinate Bench judgments in Mohit Sharma and Deepika Kumari within a time bound manner.

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representations (Annexure P-4 Colly) in light of Mohit Sharma and Deepika Kumari (supra).

Ratio / Principle

The consideration and decision of the representations is to be made expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

Key takeaways

While acting in terms of the order, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order thereafter.ratio¶10
Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if they still remain aggrieved.obiter¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral) — CWP No.18913 of 2025, Mukesh and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided 3.12.2025. Before notice could issue, petitioners' counsel relied on coordinate Bench judgments in Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024) and Deepika Kumari (CWP No.12954 of 2025), submitting the issue raised already stood adjudicated therein, and sought a time-bound decision on the petitioners' pending representations. The learned Additional Advocate General (Mr. Vishal Panwar) stated he was not averse to the 'innocuous prayer'. HELD: without going into the merits, petition disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representations (Annexure P-4 Colly) in light of Mohit Sharma and Deepika Kumari (supra), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks; the authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioners to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.18913 of 2025

Date of Decision: 3.12.2025

_______________________________________________________ Mukesh and Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Before notice, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, while inviting attention of this Court to judgments passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024 titled Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. and in CWP No.12954 of 2025, tiled Deepika Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench this Court in Mohit Sharma & Deepika Kumari (supra) and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide

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

2

the pending representations of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is 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 expeditiously.

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 representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-4 Colly) in light of Mohit Sharma & Deepika Kumari (supra), 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 being heard to the petitioners and pass speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

December 3, 2025 Manjit