Dimple Soni And Anr vs State Of H.P. And Anr

Satyen Vaidya, J

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. Kiran Lata Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, respectively.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted at the outset that the matter in issue has already been adjudicated upon by a Division Bench of this Court by way of CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled Taj Mohammad and ors. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors and CWPOA No. 242 of 2019, titled Sarita Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and anr.. He further submits that the petitioners have already made representations (Annexure P-7 and P-8) to respondent No. 2, but no decision has been taken on such representations till date. It has further been contended that the petitioners shall be satisfied at this stage in case respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners ( Annexures P-7 and P-8) in light of the aforesaid judgments in a time bound manner.

Prayer being innocuous is not opposed.

Accordingly, without adverting to the merits of the petition, the same is disposed of with the direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners (Annexures P-7 and P-8) strictly in light of the judgments passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled Taj Mohammad and ors. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors and CWPOA No. 242 of 2019, titled Sarita Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and anr , within six weeks from today by passing a detailed and reasoned order.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.