SARIKA CHANDEL AND OTHERS 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 2025-10-17. SARIKA CHANDEL AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16309 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17. 10. 2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sarika Chandel and Ors. ……... Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. ….... Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. M. A. Safee, Mr. Pranav Kaushal and Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, 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, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider representation of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. - 2 - 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 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 petitioners (Annexure P-3 Colly. ) 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 being heard to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. October 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge
Source: High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.