Shashi Rattan Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shashi Rattan 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-4) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (CWP No. 2004 of 2017), after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-4) in a time-bound manner, the petitioner claiming his case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 3.8.2023 in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 (Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh).

Court's answer

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

Ratio / Principle

The authority acting on the direction shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order; liberty was reserved to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved, and pending applications stand disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Sandeep Sharma, Judge), CWP No.5107 of 2024, Shashi Rattan v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided 18.07.2025: On the petitioner's statement that his case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 3.8.2023 in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 (Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh) and the respondents' lack of objection, the Court, without going into the merits, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-4) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of the Taj Mohammad judgment. The concerned authority must afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.5107 of 2024 Date of Decision: 18.07.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Shashi Rattan …….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. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (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, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P- 4) having been filed by the petitioner in a time bound manner.

2. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General,

while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states

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

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 pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Taj Mohammad 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

July 18, 2025 (shankar)