Pankaj Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Pankaj Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-5) in light of the judgment dated 04.10.2024 in CWPOA No.1695 of 2019 (Ajay Kumar Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and Another) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-5) in light of the judgment dated 04.10.2024 of the Coordinate Bench in CWPOA No.1695 of 2019 (Ajay Kumar Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and Another).

Court's answer

The issue raised in the petition already stands adjudicated by this Court (in the Ajay Kumar Thakur judgment), and no prejudice would be caused to either party if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation in light of that judgment.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and passing appropriate orders; liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No.11 of 2026, Pankaj Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others) disposed of at the outset, before notice, on the joint position of counsel. The petitioner sought only a direction to the respondents to decide his pending representation (Annexure P-5) in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment dated 04.10.2024 in CWPOA No.1695 of 2019, Ajay Kumar Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and Another; the Additional Advocate General stated no aversion to the prayer. Holding that the issue raised already stood adjudicated by the Court and that no prejudice would be caused, Sandeep Sharma, J. disposed of the petition directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation in light of the said judgment expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after affording the petitioner a hearing, with liberty reserved to seek further remedies if aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.11 of 2026 Date of Decision: 05.01.2026

______________________________________ Pankaj Sharma Versus	____________________ …….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others	….Respondents
______________________________________ Coram:	____________________

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

For the Petitioner: Ms. Archna Dutt and Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional 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 client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 04.10.2024 rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.1695 of 2019, titled as Ajay Kumar Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and Another, in a time bound manner.

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and case of the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment.

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

2

Having perused the averments contained in the petition

as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner in light of judgment supra.

Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

January 05, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)