Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2340 (HP)

YOGITA BALA v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/21168/2025 · 2026-01-05

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 Nos.21168 & 21166 of 2025 Decided on: 05.01.2026 1. CWP No.21168/2025 Raman Kaisht …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents 2. CWP No.21166/2025 Yogita Bala …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 in both the matters. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 3. Petitioners grievances are that their representations of different dates (Annexure P-5) seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 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 the aforesaid representations of the petitioners of different dates (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Mohit Sharma2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. Both writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 05, 2026 Judge yogesh 2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024