Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kamlesh Kumar Vs 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 petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-9) expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks, in light of the Madan Lal Sharma judgment, affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue further appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-9) in a time-bound manner, in light of this Court's earlier judgment in Madan Lal Sharma (CWP No.3341 of 2019, decided 04.09.2021).

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-9) expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks, in light of the Madan Lal Sharma judgment.

Ratio / Principle

While doing the needful in terms of the order, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order on the representation.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if he still remains aggrieved.obiter¶10
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.obiter¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral) disposed of CWP No.2843 of 2025 (Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others) without going into the merits. Counsel for the petitioner stated on instructions that the case was squarely covered by this Court's judgment dated 04.09.2021 in CWP No.3341 of 2019 (Madan Lal Sharma v. State of H.P. and another) and sought only directions to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-9) in a time-bound manner; the Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents stated he was not averse to the prayer. The Court accordingly directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks, in light of the Madan Lal Sharma case, directing that the petitioner be afforded an opportunity of hearing and that a speaking order be passed, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved and disposing of pending applications, if any.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.2843 of 2025

Date of Decision: 03.04.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Kamlesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on

instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 04.09.2021 passed by this Court in CWP No.3341 of 2019, titled Madan Lal Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-9) having been filed by the petitioner, in a time bound manner.

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

2

2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

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 pending representation (Annexure P-9) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks in light of Madan Lal Sharma case (supra). 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 a speaking order thereupon. 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

April 03,2025 (shankar)