Disposed¶18

Roshan Lal v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC2 May 2025CWP/3797/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Roshan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.; CWP No.3797 of 2025; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Justice Sandeep Sharma; disposal without going into merits; direction to consider and decide representation Annexure P-4; reliance on Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No. 2004 of 2017 (judgment dated 3.8.2023); time bound manner; six weeks; opportunity of hearing; speaking order; liberty reserved; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-4) in light of Taj Mohammad (supra), expeditiously and preferably within six weeks, affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved. ¶18

Roshan Lal Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

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

¶13

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-4) in light of Taj Mohammad (supra), expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

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

¶18

Key takeaways

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J., Oral Order), 02.05.2025, CWP No.3797 of 2025 — Roshan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated, on instructions, that the petitioner's case was squarely covered by the judgment dated 3.8.2023 passed in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, and sought only time-bound consideration of the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-4). The learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents stated he was not averse to the prayer. The Court, without going into the merits, disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide representation (Annexure P-4) in light of Taj Mohammad (supra) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, with an opportunity of hearing and a speaking order; liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.3797 of 2025 Date of Decision: 2.5.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Roshan Lal

¶4

……...Petitioner Versus

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

¶6

…....Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

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

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Pankaj Thakur, Advocate.

¶10

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.

¶11

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on

¶13

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, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-4) in a time bound manner.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

the petitioner.

¶18

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 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 he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶19

May 2, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge

Roshan Lal v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Lal v. 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

Yash Pal Bansal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Shobha Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Roop Singh Vs the Hpsfc and Others

Lekh Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

Maya Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Chandresh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others