Disposed¶13

Amit Kumar and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Jul 2025CWP/8171/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HP High Court, Shimla; CWP No.8171 of 2024; Amit Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others; decided 03.07.2025 by Sandeep Sharma, J.; disposal on the basis of Co-ordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma, CWP No.1638 of 2024 (decided 29.11.2024); direction to consider and decide pending representations (Annexure P-12 colly) within six weeks; opportunity of hearing and speaking order mandated; liberty reserved; no merits adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representations (Annexure P-12 colly) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024), after affording an opportunity of hearing and by passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved. ¶13

Amit Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representations (Annexure P-12 colly) in a time-bound manner in light of the Co-ordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024).

¶7

Court's answer

Without going into the merits, this Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations (Annexure P-12 colly) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of the Mohit Sharma judgment.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The authority concerned, while acting in terms of the order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order.

¶13

Key takeaways

Liberty was reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if they still remained aggrieved, and pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No.8171 of 2024, Amit Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others) disposed of by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Sandeep Sharma, J.) on 03.07.2025 without entering the merits, on the strength of the Co-ordinate Bench judgment dated 29.11.2024 in Mohit Sharma, CWP No.1638 of 2024. The respondents were directed to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representations (Annexure P-12 colly) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Mohit Sharma; the authority concerned must afford an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order. Liberty was reserved to the petitioners to institute appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications were also disposed of. The Additional Advocate General fairly stated he was not averse to the prayer.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.8171 of 2024

¶3

Date of Decision: 03.07.2025

¶4

____________ ___________________________________________ Amit Kumar and others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on

¶6

instructions, states that the petitioners’ case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma and another vs.

¶7

State of Himachal Pradesh and others and as such, they would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representations (Annexure P-12 colly) having been filed by the petitioners, in a time bound manner.

¶8

2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,

¶9

while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

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 representations (Annexure P-12 colly) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Mohit Sharma 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 petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶14

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶15

July 03 2025 (shankar)

Amit Kumar and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar and Others 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

Raj Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Rakesh Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vinod Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Another

Dixit Mahant Vs the State of Hp and Others

Uttam Sain Vs State of Hp and Others

Rattan Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others