Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2239 (HP)

PADAM SINGH v. THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER

CWP/21152/2025 · 2026-01-02

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.21152 of 2025 Decided on: 02.01.2026. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Padam Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sourav Sharma and Mr. Rocky, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner’s grievances is that his representation dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) seeking applicability of Ghanshyam Dass and others versus State of Himachal Prdesh and others2, has not been decided till 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2CWP No. 8148 of 2022, decided on 21.03.2024 a/w connected matters. 2 date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation 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 matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Ghanshyam Dass2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 02, 2026 Judge yogesh