IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 3037/2008 Decided on:20.9.2010 _____________________________________________ Subhash Chand Sharma. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Yogesh Pal, Advocate for respondent No.4. ____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge ( oral ) . Mr. D.K. Khanna submits that his client has already made representation for the redressal of his grievance vide Annexure P-8. The same has not been decided till date. However, Mr. D.K. Khanna Prays for and is permitted to file fresh representation by the petitioner to the Director (Prosecution) for the redressal of his grievance. The same shall be preferred within a period of three weeks from today. It shall be open to the petitioner to place additional material 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No with the representation, which he could not place with the earlier representation Annexure P-8. The Director (Prosecution) shall decide the same by a speaking order within a period of two months after the receipt of representation alongwith certified copy of this judgment. While passing order, the petitioner shall also be heard in person by the Director (Prosecution). In case the grievance of the petitioner is redressed by the Director (Prosecution), he shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. 2. In view of above direction, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 20.9.2010 *awasthi*