IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19868 of 2025 Decided on: 19th December, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Raj Kumar Gupta …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2, through video conference. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, respectively. 2. Petitioner had instituted Raj Kumar Gupta Versus State of H.P. and another2. The said writ petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.13358 of 2025, decided on 20.08.2025 2 accordance with law within the given timeframe. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 passed speaking order on 25.10.2025 (Annexure P-7). Petitioner feels aggrieved against the said order. 3. However, a perusal of the impugned speaking order shows that it was an order, which was subject to the outcome of Rajinder Kumar Jairath & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.3, which is still pending adjudication before this Court. The impugned order records as under:- “Therefore, the representations of Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta (Petitioner) are provisionally decided, subject to the final outcome of the above titled writ petition pending adjudication before the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. The case of the Petitioner shall be decided in accordance with the final judgment and directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No.8848 of 2022 (Rajinder Kumar Jairath & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors.).” In view of above, the grievance of the petitioner is presently premature. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition at this stage with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law at an appropriate stage, in case necessity so arises in future. 3 CWP No.8848 of 2022 3 Granting such liberty, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 19, 2025 Judge Mukesh