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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the Competent Authority to decide the petitioners' representations (Annexure P-4 and P-5) in terms of the averments made therein, taking into consideration the judgments relied upon by the petitioners, by passing a speaking order within eight weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Competent Authority should be directed to decide the petitioners' representations (Annexure P-4 and P-5), in terms of the averments made therein and taking into consideration the judgments relied upon by the petitioners, by passing a speaking order within a fixed time.

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the Competent Authority shall decide the representations (Annexure P-4 and P-5) made by the petitioners.

Ratio / Principle

The representations are to be decided in terms of the averments made therein, taking into consideration the judgments relied upon by the petitioners, by passing a speaking order within a period of eight weeks.

Key takeaways

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral order of a single Judge (Ajay Mohan Goel, J.), High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, dated 06.01.2025, in CWP No. 267 of 2025 (Rakesh Kumar and another v. State of H.P. and another): without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the petition was disposed of with the direction that the representations (Annexure P-4 and P-5) made by the petitioners be decided by the Competent Authority in terms of the averments made therein, taking into consideration the judgments relied upon by the petitioners — including the Division Bench judgment in Taj Mohammad and others v. State of H.P. and others, CWP No. 2004 of 2017 alongwith connected matters, decided on 03.08.2023 — by passing a speaking order within a period of eight weeks; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stood disposed of accordingly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 267 of 2025 Decided on: 06.01.2025 Sh. Rakesh Kumar and another … Petitioners

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Respondents Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹

_____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

Notice. Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the prayer made herein is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 alongwith connected matters, titled Taj Mohammad and others vs. State of H.P. and others , decided on 03.08.2023. He further submits that representations (Annexure P-4 and P-5) have also been made by the petitioners in this regard and it would be in the interest of justice, in case, this petition is disposed of with the direction that let the representations of the petitioners be decided by the Competent Authority, in terms of the averments made in the representations as well as the judgments being relied upon by the petitioners therein.

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

2

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction that let the representations (Annexure P-4 and P-5) made by the petitioners shall be decided by the Competent Authority, in terms of the averments made therein, taking into consideration the judgments being relied upon by the petitioners therein, by passing a speaking order, within a period of eight weeks from today.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

January 06, 2025 (narender)