Kartar Singh Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kartar Singh Vs the State of Hp and Another — 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-5) in light of Nitin Kumar (supra) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks; similar benefits to be extended if the petitioner is found similarly situate; opportunity of hearing to be afforded before passing appropriate orders. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should be issued to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Nitin Kumar (supra) within 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-5) in light of Nitin Kumar (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment (Nitin Kumar), he would be extended similar benefits.

Key takeaways

The authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition — disposal without entering into merits — Petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue raised already stands adjudicated by a Coordinate Bench in Nitin Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr., CWPOA No. 1077 of 2019, and sought a time-bound direction for consideration of the petitioner's representation; respondents' counsel stated he was not averse to the prayer. The Court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-5) in light of Nitin Kumar (supra) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, extending similar benefits if the petitioner is found similarly situate, and affording an opportunity of being heard before passing appropriate orders. Pending applications disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.9091 of 2025 Date of Decision: 2.6.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Kartar Singh ……...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: Mr. Pushpender Verma, Advocate. 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)

Before reply, if any, could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWPOA No. 1077 of 2019 titled Nitin Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. , states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench this Court in afore judgment and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

2 -

2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously.

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 of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) in light of Nitin Kumar (supra) , expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

June 2, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge