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

Krishna Devi and Others 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 representation (Annexure P-6) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order in light of the Division Bench judgment in Sanjay Kumar (CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, decided 01.11.2023); liberty reserved to the petitioners to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners' pending representation (Annexure P-6) should be considered and decided by the competent authority in light of the Division Bench judgment in Sanjay Kumar (CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, decided 01.11.2023); the underlying substantive grievance is not set out in the judgment.

Court's answer

Without going into the merits and without calling for replies, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representation (Annexure P-6) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The authority deciding the representation shall afford the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and pass a detailed speaking order taking note of the Division Bench judgment in Sanjay Kumar (supra).

Key takeaways

The issue sought to be decided in these proceedings has already been adjudicated in Sanjay Kumar (supra), which is why the Court disposed of the petition without entering the merits.ratio¶10
Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to institute appropriate proceedings in an appropriate forum if they remain aggrieved after the representation is decided.ratio¶10
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA — CWP No.19123 of 2025 — Krishna Devi and Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others — Decided 05.12.2025 by Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral). Before notices could issue, counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submitted that his clients would be content if their pending representation (Annexure P-6) were considered and decided by the competent authority in a time-bound manner in light of the Division Bench judgment in Sanjay Kumar v. State of H.P. and Others, CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, decided 01.11.2023 (with connected matters). The respondents, represented by the Additional Advocate General, accepted notice and undertook expeditious decision in accordance with law. Holding that the issue sought to be raised already stood adjudicated in Sanjay Kumar (supra), the Court disposed of the petition without going into the merits, directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording the petitioners a hearing and passing a detailed speaking order taking note of that judgment. Liberty was reserved to the petitioners to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications were disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.19123 of 2025

Date of Decision: 05.12.2025

_______________________________________________________ Krishna Devi and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (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 representation (Annexure P-6) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Others , decided on 01.11.2023, along with connected matters, in a time bound manner.

Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,

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

2

who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

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. 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 Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar (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.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

December 05, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)