Tek Chand Verma Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Tek Chand Verma 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 representation (Annexure P-2) in light of Sanjay Kumar (supra) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; pending applications, if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-2) in light of CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020, Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors (alongwith connected matters), in a time bound manner.

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-2) in light of Sanjay Kumar (supra).

Ratio / Principle

The representation is to be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

Key takeaways

While doing the needful in terms of the order, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order thereupon.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP No. 8891 of 2025, Tek Chand Verma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.), decided on 5.6.2025 by Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral), High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-2) in light of CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020, Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors (alongwith connected matters), in a time bound manner. The learned Additional Advocate General (Mr. Vishal Panwar) stated he was not averse to the prayer. Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation in light of Sanjay Kumar (supra) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.8891 of 2025 Date of Decision: 5.6.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Tek Chand Verma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

……...Petitioner Versus …....Respondents

Coram

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

For the Petitioner: M/s Sative Chauhan, Satpal Chauhan, Prashant Chauhan, Ashir Kaith and Rohit Thakur, Advocates. 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. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on

instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-2) in light of CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020, titled as Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors . (alongwith connected matters), in a time bound manner.

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

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 representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner in light of Sanjay Kumar (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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

June 5, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge