Disposed¶12

Pushp Lata v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Jun 2025CWP/8895/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; CWP No.8895 of 2025; Pushp Lata versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.; Justice Sandeep Sharma; decision dated 5.6.2025; direction to respondents to decide representation Annexure P-2 in light of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020; time-bound disposal within six weeks; opportunity of hearing; speaking order; petition disposed of without examining merits; pending applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-2) in light of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors (CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording her an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order. ¶12

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

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

¶12

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 (CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020).

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The consideration and decision of the representation is to be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

¶12

Key takeaways

While acting on the direction, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.8895 of 2025 (Pushp Lata v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.), decided 05.06.2025 by Sandeep Sharma, J.: learned counsel, on instructions, stated that the petitioner would be content if directions were issued to the respondents to consider and decide her representation (Annexure P-2) in light of CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020, Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors (alongwith connected matters); the learned Additional Advocate General did not oppose the prayer. Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to 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.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.8895 of 2025 Date of Decision: 5.6.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Pushp Lata ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

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)

¶7

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 her 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.

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

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

¶11

the petitioner.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

Pushp Lata v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushp Lata v. the 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

Naryan Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Nishant Nadda Vs State of Hp and Others

Usha Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pankaj Thakur Vs Hpsebl and Others

Tek Chand Verma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs the UOI and Others