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

Vijay Kumar Thakur 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-3 Colly.) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing appropriate orders thereafter; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representations (Annexure P-3 Colly.) in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma (supra), in 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-3 Colly.) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral order; decision dated 9.12.2025) in CWP No.19241 of 2025, Vijay Kumar Thakur and Anr. versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.: Before any reply was called for, counsel for the petitioners invited attention to the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of the same Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., stating that the issue raised in the instant proceedings already stood adjudicated therein, and confined the prayer to directions that the petitioners' representations (Annexure P-3 Colly.) be considered and decided in light of that judgment in a time-bound manner. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, 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 representations in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, with an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and appropriate orders thereafter; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.19241 of 2025 Date of Decision:9.12.2025

Vijay Kumar Thakur and Anr.

……...Petitioners Versus …....Respondents

State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Pawan K. Sharma and Ms. Tim Saran Sharma, Advocates.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Before reply, if any, could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. , states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench this Court in Mohit Sharma ( supra ) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-3 Colly.) in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

2 -

2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states 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 representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-3 Colly.) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra) , expeditiously, preferably within a period of four 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 appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

December 9, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge