GHANSHYAM SWROOP CHAINTA AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
CWP/19892/2025 · 2025-12-17
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 29508 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 29508 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.19892 of 2025
Decided on: 17.12.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ghanshyam Swroop and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr.Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy
Advocate
General
for respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, 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. Petitioners’
grievance
is
that
their representations dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure P-1, colly.) seeking applicability of Ghanshyam Dass and others versus State of Himachal Prdesh and others2, have not 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 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 matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure P-1, colly.) 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 petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 17, 2025 Judge yogesh