1 2025:HHC:35595 2025:HHC:35596 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No.629 of 2025 a/w LPA No.661 of 2025 Decided on: 17 th October , 2025 ______________________________________________________ 1. LPA No.629 of 2025 State of H.P. and others ....Appellants Versus Kumari Beena Devi ...Respondent _______________________________________________________ 2. LPA No.661 of 2025 State of H.P. and others ....Appellants Versus Balak Ram ...Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, in both the appeals. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the judgment dated 26.06.2025 in LPA No.629 of 2025 and judgment dated 21.06.2025 in LPA No.661 of 2025, passed by the learned Single Judge, arising out of CWP No.10249 of 2025 titled Kumari Beena Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 and CWP No.9973 of 2025 titled Balak Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, respectively. 2. Counsel for the State is not in a position to press the present appeals, keeping in view the fact that in the grounds itself, it has been mentioned that there was a stay order issued by the Apex Court on 24.03.2025 (Annexure A-1), wherein, operation of the impugned order(s) were stayed subsequently which were arising out of the judgment in Satya Devi’s case, in which initially there was no stay. 3. Counsel for the State though has relied upon our admission order dated 02.07.2025, keeping in view the order passed in various LPAs, lead case of which is LPA No.228 of 2025 titled State of H.P. and others vs. Rukmi Devi and others, in which, interim directions were granted in view of the stay granted by the Apex Court. 4. In such circumstances, we are surprised as to why concession was given before the learned Single Judge that the matter is covered by the decision in Satya Devi’s case, which is clear from both the orders which are now subject matter of the appeals dated 21.06.2025 and 26.06.2025. 5. It is pertinent to notice that we had already stayed the operation of judgment on 13.05.2025 in CMP No.10242 of 2025 3 while condoning the delay in CMP(M) No.537 of 2025 and issuing notice in LPA No.228 of 2025 and therefore there was no occasion for the State to give such a concession before the learned Single Judge. 6. Faced with this situation, counsel for the State submits that he does not wish to press the present appeals and prays for liberty to approach the learned Single Judge to clarify this aspect. 7. In view of the above, the present Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 17 th October , 2025 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge