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

Suman Kumari 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 pending representation (Annexure P-6) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of the Sanjay Kumar case, affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-6) in a time-bound manner, the petitioner's case being stated to be covered by the Sanjay Kumar judgment.

Court's answer

Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-6) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of the Sanjay Kumar case.

Ratio / Principle

The authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order while deciding the representation.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if she still remains aggrieved.ratio¶12
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.7631 of 2025 — Suman Kumari v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided 14.05.2025; Sandeep Sharma, Judge, oral). Counsel for the petitioner stated that her case was squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment dated 01.11.2023 in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, and confined her prayer to a direction that her pending representation (Annexure P-6) be considered and decided in a time-bound manner. The Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, raised no objection. Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of the Sanjay Kumar case; the authority concerned was to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if she still remained aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.7631 of 2025

Date of Decision: 14.05.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Suman Kumari …….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. Desh Raj Thakur, 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 01.11.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020 titled as Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters and as such, she would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-6) 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-6) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Sanjay Kumar 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 she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

May 14,2025 (shankar)