Rakesh Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rakesh Sharma Vs 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 pending representation (Annexure P-11) expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks, in light of the Madan Lal case, after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-11) in a time-bound manner in light of the judgment dated 30.12.2022 of the Co-ordinate Bench in CWPOA No.7531 of 2019 (Madan Lal).

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 pending representation (Annexure P-11) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks, in light of the Madan Lal case.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if he still remains aggrieved.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.5023 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided 16.05.2025 by Sandep Sharma, Judge, orally): writ petition disposed of without going into the merits. Respondents directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-11) expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks, in light of the Co-ordinate Bench judgment dated 30.12.2022 in CWPOA No.7531 of 2019, Madan Lal & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another. The authority concerned must afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.5023 of 2025

Date of Decision: 16.05.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Rakesh Sharma …….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. Devender K. Sharma, 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):

Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on

instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 30.12.2022 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.7531 of 2019, titled Madan Lal & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-11) having been filed by the petitioner, in a time bound manner.

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

2

2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, 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.

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-11) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks in light of Madan Lal 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 he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

May 16,2025 (shankar)