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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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

Issue for consideration

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

Court's answer

Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-4) in light of Taj Mohammad (supra), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The authority deciding the representation shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if she still remains aggrieved.ratio¶18
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition disposed of without adjudication on merits. The petitioner, claiming that her case was squarely covered by the judgment dated 3.8.2023 in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, sought only a time-bound direction for disposal of her representation (Annexure P-4). The learned Additional Advocate General did not oppose the prayer. The High Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation in light of Taj Mohammad (supra) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order, while reserving liberty to her to seek further remedies if still aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.3203 of 2025 Date of Decision: 8.4.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Jyoti Pathania

……...Petitioner Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.

…....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rocky and Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on

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 her representation (Annexure P-4) in a time bound manner.

2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states

2 -

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 representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner in light of Taj Mohammad (supra) 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 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.

April 8, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge