JEET RAM v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Himachal Pradesh judgment dated 2025-12-30. JEET RAM v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 20639 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30. 12. 2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Jeet Ram ……... Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. ….... Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench this Court in Mohit Sharma (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is - 2 - not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. 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 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four 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 appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. December 30, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.