Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37217 (HP)

LEKH RAJ AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/20116/2025 · 2025-12-20

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.20092, 20102 & 20116/2025 Decided on:20.12.2025. 1. CWP No. 20092/2025 Bhagwant Singh and another …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 20102/2025 Parkash Chand and others …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others .…Respondents. 3. CWP No. 20116/2025 Lekh Raj and others …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauha, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and 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 2 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the matters are heard at this stage 3. Petitioners’ grievances are that their representations of different dates (Annexure P-3, colly.) seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of 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 matter, all these writ petitions are disposed of with directions to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners of different dates (Annexure P-3, colly.) 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. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 20, 2025 Judge yogesh 2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024