Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35377 (HP)

JITENDRA SHARMA v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/16626/2025 · 2025-12-01

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. 16608/2025 a/w connected matters Decided on: 01.12.2025 1. CWP No. 16608/2025 Manorma Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No.16620/2025 Meena Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 3. CWP No.16624/2025 Kalpana Kapoor …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 4. CWP No.16626/2025 Jitendra Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 5. CWP No.16628/2025 Bhutashni Devi …Petitioner 2 Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 6. CWP No.16630/2025 Prem Lata Verma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 7. CWP No.16634/2025 Amar Nath …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, in all the petitions. For the respondent(s): Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General, in all the petitions. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents in all the petitions. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 3 2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their respective representation(s) annexed with these writ petitions, seeking applicability of Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs. State of H.P.2 have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the petitioner(s) would be content, in case, respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation(s) of the petitioner(s), in accordance with law, within a time bound manner. Learned Assistant Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation(s) of the petitioner(s), in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in case of Ranjit Singh2, within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 1st December, 2025(rohit) 2CWP No. 2500 of 2021, decided a/w connected matters on 07.07.2023