1 2025:HHC:31838 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No. 1248 of 2023 & R.P. No.77 of 2025 in R.P. No.54 of 2018 Decided on: 12.09.2025 Baldev Kumar & anr. ......applicants Versus Higher Education Institute Society & Ors. ...non-applicants/respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicants : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarun, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.2 to 4-State. None for respondent No.5. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 1248 of 2023 & R.P. No.77 of 2025 The present petition by the original writ petitioners has been filed for reviewing the order dated 20.08.2021 passed by the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:31838 coordinate Bench, in which, at that point of time, review petition was allowed and the order dated 09.05.2017 which had earlier been passed clarifying the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 23.04.2024 had been recalled. 2. Resultantly, the coordinate Bench also took the LPA again on board and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and restored CWP No.2443 of 2012. The said orders were passed in the presence of the present applicants, who are the writ petitioners in the said case namely Baldev Kumar and Suminder Verma. The matter is therefore stated to be pending before the learned Single Judge. 3. The ground for review now is that reply has been filed in which a contradictory plea has been taken as to what had been taken when the review was decided and it is in such circumstances it is submitted that there is an error apparent on the face of the record 4. We are not in a position to firstly agree with this proposition since apparently the reply was filed only at a subsequent point of time and therefore it cannot be said that coordinate Bench earlier was having the said reply on the basis of which any error 3 2025:HHC:31838 could have occurred. Even otherwise we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition is now pending before the learned Single Judge and it is always open to the petitioner as such to contest the same by filing replication to rebut the stand taken by the respondents in the writ petition and no useful purpose would be served now again to restore the LPA as now is being sought to be done. The delay of 702 days as such is also apparently sought to be condoned on the ground that there was sufficient cause as such because of the filing of the said reply and limitation is to count from that date. 5. In view of the above observations, we do not feel that any fresh cause of action has arisen as such the LPA having been decided in the presence of the counsels at that point of time. Merely on account of a subsequent pleadings before the learned Single Judge which matter is to be now decided afresh on merits, the present review petition would not be maintainable in the manner for the reasons given in the review petition. 6. Resultantly, we neither condone the delay nor entertain the review petition. Needless to say, any observation made herein is 4 2025:HHC:31838 only for the purpose of deciding the application for condonation of delay and review petition. It is open to the present applicants to pursue their writ petition in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the present application and review petition stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice September 12 , 2025 ( Ajay Mohan Goel ) (ankit) Judge