Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 1985 (HP)

ANJU DEVI v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/20952/2025 · 2026-01-02

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20952 of 2025 and connected matters Decided on: 02.01.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.20952 of 2025 Anju Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.21030 of 2025 Ruchika Chaudhary …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Anr .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.21288 of 2025 Suresh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Anr .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Rakesh K Dogra, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 3. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions, seeking applicability of Mohan Singh and Others Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2 have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide 2 CWP No.814 of 2020 decided alongwith connected matters on 27.10.2025 3 the aforesaid representations of the in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Mohan Singh2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 02, 2026 Judge R.Atal