Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Another

Sandeep Sharma, J

Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned c unsel 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 case of t e petitioner in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.54 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. and Others Vs. Om Prakash, decided on 04.10.2019, along with connected matter, 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.

3.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 ab ve, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to he espondents to consider and decide the case 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 st ll remains aggrieved.

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