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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without deciding merits, with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-7) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording her an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order taking note of the judgment in CWP(OA) No.1077 of 2019 (Nitin Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Another); liberty reserved to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved.

Ratio / Principle

This Court disposed of the writ petition without going into the merits of the case, on the petitioner's counsel stating that the petitioner would be content with a time-bound decision on her pending representation (Annexure P-7) in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in CWP(OA) No.1077 of 2019.

Key takeaways

The respondents were directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-7) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.ratio¶13
The competent authority, while deciding the representation, shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a detailed speaking order taking note of the judgment in CWP(OA) No.1077 of 2019, wherein the very issue had already been adjudicated.ratio¶13
Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if she still remains aggrieved.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition disposed of at the threshold, without notice to the respondents and without adjudication on the merits. On counsel's statement, on instructions, that the petitioner would be content with a time-bound consideration of her pending representation (Annexure P-7) by the competent authority in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in CWP(OA) No.1077 of 2019 (Nitin Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Another, decided 22.08.2022), and the State's counsel expressing no objection, the Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks. The authority concerned must afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a detailed speaking order taking note of that judgment, wherein the issue now sought to be raised already stands adjudicated. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to move an appropriate Court if still aggrieved. Pending applications disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.9437 of 2025

Date of Decision: 06.06.2025

____________________________________ Asha Kumari Versus	___________________ …….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ____________________________________	….Respondents ___________________

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner: Mr. Kiran Kumar Chauhan, 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, for State.

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case her pending representation (Annexure P-7) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP(OA) No.1077 of 2019, titled as Nitin Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Another , decided on 22.08.2022, in a time bound manner.

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on

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

2

behalf of the petitioner and pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

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-7) 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, as detailed hereinabove, 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 she still remains aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

June 06, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)