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

Ajay Kumar Vs 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 dated 29.12.2024 (Annexure P-9) in light of Om Parkash v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (CWPOA No.7602 of 2010, judgment dated 2.5.2012) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording the petitioner 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, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 29.12.2024 (Annexure P-9) in light of the Division Bench judgment dated 2.5.2012 in Om Parkash v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (CWPOA No.7602 of 2010), 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 representation (Annexure P-9) in light of Om Parkash (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

Ratio / Principle

While considering and deciding the representation in terms of the instant order, the authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon.

Key takeaways

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J.), oral order dated 20.03.2025 in CWP No.3753 of 2025, Ajay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.: On the petitioner's counsel stating, on instructions, that the petitioner would be content if the respondents were directed to consider and decide his representation dated 29.12.2024 (Annexure P-9) in light of the Division Bench judgment dated 2.5.2012 in CWPOA No.7602 of 2010, Om Parkash v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (alongwith connected matters), and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents stating he was not averse to the prayer, the Court disposed of the writ petition without going into the merits, directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation in light of Om Parkash (supra) 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 if still aggrieved, and pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.3753 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.3.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar

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

State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, 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 representing 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 29.12.2024 (Annexure P-9) having been filed by the petitioner in light of judgment dated 2.5.2012, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.7602 of 2010, titled Om Parkash v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (alongwith connected matters), in a time bound manner.

2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 the representation (Annexure P-9) of the petitioner in light of Om Parkash (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 he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

March 20, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge

(manjit)