IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP. No. 1913 of 2008.. Date of Decision:6.9.2010.. _______________________________________________ Devi Dass Negi. ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner :Mr. M.C.Verma, Advocate. For Respondents 1&2. :Mr.P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. A prayer is made on behalf of the petitioner that the writ petition be treated as a representation by respondent No.1 as even according to the reply filed by the State, such representation is pending. In particular paragraph 21-A of the reply filed by the State admits that representation of the petitioner is still under consideration. In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that this writ petition shall be treated as a representation to be decided by respondent No.1 expeditiously. For this purpose, the respondents shall grant an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard as also to all other persons to be affected by Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes . 2 the decision on the representation. Decision be taken on the representation within a period of three months from today. Needless to say, the representation shall be disposed of by passing a speaking order. The writ petition is disposed of. All miscellaneous applications are also disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. September 6, 2010(R)