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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without adjudicating merits; respondents directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order in light of the judgment in Inder Singh Thakur (CWP No.4830 of 2023, decided 07.04.2025); liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the competent authority should consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment dated 07.04.2025 in CWP No.4830 of 2023 (Inder Singh Thakur and Others v. State of H.P. and Others).

Court's answer

Having regard to the nature of the prayer and the order proposed, the Court saw no necessity to call for a reply from the respondents, who were represented by the learned Additional Advocate General accepting notice and stating that any pending representation would be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the merits, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

Key takeaways

While acting on the direction, the authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a detailed speaking order taking note of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Inder Singh Thakur (supra); liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition – Disposed of at motion stage without notice/reply – Counsel for petitioner, on instructions, stated the petitioner would be content if his pending representation (Annexure P-3) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of the judgment dated 07.04.2025 of a Coordinate Bench in CWP No.4830 of 2023, Inder Singh Thakur and Others v. State of H.P. and Others (with connected matter) – Additional Advocate General accepted notice and stated any pending representation shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law – Court saw no necessity to call for reply – Petition disposed of without going into merits, with direction to respondents to decide the pending representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks – Authority to afford opportunity of hearing and pass detailed speaking order taking note of the said Coordinate Bench judgment, wherein the issue already stands adjudicated – Liberty reserved to petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved – Pending applications disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.9127 of 2025

Date of Decision: 02.06.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Nikhil …….Petitioners 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. Ajeet Singh Saklani, 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): Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation (Annexure P-3) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment dated 07.04.2025 rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.4830 of 2023, titled as Inder Singh Thakur and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others alongwith connected matter, in a time bound

manner.

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

2

Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 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-3) of the petitioner 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 detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Inder Singh Thakur case (supra ), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

June 02, 2025 (shankar)