NEETA RAM 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 2024-12-21. NEETA RAM AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
2024:HHC:15515 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15779 of 2024 Date of Decision: 21. 12. 2024 _______________________________________________________ Neeta Ram and others ……. Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Daleep Chand, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 31. 09. 2024 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioners in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 alongwith connected matters, titled Taj Mohammad and others vs.
State of H. P. and others, decided on 03. 08. 2023, in a time bound manner. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that if decision Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2024:HHC:15515 on the aforesaid representation has been not taken, same shall be taken expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in terms of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Taj Mohammad case (supra). Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass speaking order thereupon.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 21, 2024 (shankar)
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.