Heera Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others

Sandeep Sharma, J

Before notice, 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-4) of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 23.06.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.8032 of 2021, titled as Vikas Kumar Vs. Sate of H.P. and Others, along with connected matters, in a time bound manner.

Learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

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 case 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 c nsider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P- 4) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, p efe ably within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, a thority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall aff rd 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.