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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without notice or adjudication on merits; respondents directed to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-5) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in accordance with Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024), after affording hearing and passing a detailed speaking order; liberty reserved to pursue further remedies; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-5) in accordance with the Coordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024); the Court did not frame or decide any substantive issue, having disposed of the matter without going into merits.

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the merits and before issuance of notice, the Court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-5) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.

Key takeaways

The authority deciding the representation shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a detailed speaking order taking note of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma (supra), wherein the issue sought to be raised already stands adjudicated.ratio¶10
Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if he remains aggrieved after the representation is decided.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral) — CWP No.19163 of 2025, Sheesh Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (decided 05.12.2025). At the stage before notice, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was disposed of without going into the merits. The respondents/competent authority were directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-5) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in accordance with and taking note of the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in Mohit Sharma and Another v. State of H.P. and Others, CWP No.1638 of 2024, wherein the issue sought to be raised had already been adjudicated. The deciding authority was further directed to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and to pass a detailed speaking order. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to move an appropriate Court if still aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.19163 of 2025

Date of Decision: 05.12.2025

_______________________________________________________ Shri Sheesh Ram …….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. Subhash Chander, Advocate. 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 petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation (Annexure P-5) 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.

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

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

2

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

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. 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.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

December 05, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)