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

Vishal Jaswal 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 petitioner's representation dated 11.9.2024 (Annexure P-7) in light of the judgment dated 9.10.2023 in CWP No. 1747 of 2023, expeditiously preferably within six weeks, after affording 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 dated 11.9.2024 (Annexure P-7) in light of this Court's judgment dated 9.10.2023 in CWP No. 1747 of 2023 (Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors), in a time-bound manner.

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-7) in light of the earlier judgment dated 9.10.2023 in CWP No. 1747 of 2023.

Ratio / Principle

The representation is to be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

Key takeaways

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.ratio¶14
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if he still remains aggrieved.ratio¶14
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla — CWP No.3323 of 2025, Vishal Jaswal v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (decided 11.3.2025, Sandeep Sharma, J., oral). On the petitioner counsel's instruction that the petitioner would be content if the respondents were directed to consider and decide his representation dated 11.9.2024 (Annexure P-7) in light of this Court's judgment dated 9.10.2023 in CWP No. 1747 of 2023 (Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors), and the learned Additional Advocate General (B.C. Verma) stating he was not averse to the innocuous prayer, the Court disposed of the petition without going into the merits, directing the respondents to decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, while affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court if still aggrieved, and pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.3323 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.3.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Vishal Jaswal

……...Petitioner Versus …....Respondents

State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

Coram

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

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. 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 would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 11.9.2024 (Annexure P-7) having been filed by the petitioner in light of judgment dated 9.10.2023, passed by this Court in CWP No. 1747 of 2023, titled Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, in a time bound manner.

2. Mr. B.C. Verma, 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.

2 -

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-7) of the petitioner in light of afore judgment, 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 he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

March 11, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge