Disposed¶12

Pushpa Rani v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Apr 2025CWP/3201/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pushpa Rani v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others; CWP No.3201 of 2025; decided 08.04.2025; Justice Sandeep Sharma; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; representation Annexure P-4; Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No. 2004 of 2017, judgment dated 3.8.2023; disposed without going into merits; six weeks; opportunity of hearing; speaking order; liberty reserved; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-4) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Taj Mohammad case (supra), after affording her an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-4) in a time-bound manner, in light of the Taj Mohammad judgment.

¶6

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-4).

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The consideration and decision of the representation is to be made expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks, in light of Taj Mohammad case (supra).

¶12

Key takeaways

While acting on the representation, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order thereupon.ratio¶12
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if she still remains aggrieved.obiter¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Single Bench), High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla — CWP No.3201 of 2025, decided 08.04.2025. The writ petition of Smt. Pushpa Rani, founded on her claim that her case is squarely covered by Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (CWP No. 2004 of 2017, judgment dated 3.8.2023), was disposed of without going into the merits. The Court directed the respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-4) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of the Taj Mohammad decision, affording her an opportunity of hearing and requiring a speaking order. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to move the appropriate court if still aggrieved; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Respondents' counsel had stated he was not averse to the prayer.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.3201 of 2025

¶3

Date of Decision: 08.04.2025

¶4

____________ ___________________________________________ Smt. Pushpa Rani …….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. Pankaj Thakur, 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):

¶5

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on

¶6

instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 3.8.2023, passed in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and as such, she would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P- 4) having been filed by the petitioner in a time bound manner.

¶7

2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General,

¶8

while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶12

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-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Taj Mohammad 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 she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶13

(Sandeep Sharma),

¶14

Judge

¶15

April 08, 2025 (shankar)

Pushpa Rani v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Rani v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Singh Vs Hpsebl and Others

Narender Mehta Vs State of Hp and Others

Gian Chand Vs Hrtc and Another

Sheela Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Jyoti Pathania Vs the State of Hp and Another

Shyam Lal Vs State of Hp and Anr.