1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11588 of 2026 Decided on: 14.07.2026 Sweety …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ahswani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Heard and considered the case file. 2. From the documents on record, it appears that Common Service Centre (CSC) was being run in Gram Panchyat, Ladoh, Tehsil Panchrukhi, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh- respondent No.5. The said CSC was statedly run by the petitioner. On 27.06.2026, Gram Panchyat, Ladoh passed a resolution (Annexure P-8), impugned herein to the effect that Gram Panchyat does not possess adequate sitting accommodation, therefore, it was necessary to take possession of CSC; The Gram Panchyat will take appropriate call for running of CSC once it is in possession of adequate accommodation for 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 itself. Feeling aggrieved of this resolution, petitioner has directly invoked jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was in terms of office order dated 12.07.2023 (Annexure P-1) that Gram Panchyat, Ladoh was sanctioned ₹5,00,000/- for running CSC; The petitioner has a four year old child, her husband is also unemployed, there being no other means for petitioner’s sustenance, the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 4. To a query of the Court, learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that petitioner till date has not preferred any representation whatsoever to any Competent Authority against the impugned resolution dated 27.06.2026 passed by respondent No.5; That even before the concerned Gram Panchyat, petitioner has not filed any representation apprising them with her point of view. In the given circumstances, it will not be appropriate to entertain the petitioner’s writ petition that has been instituted without preferring any representation to the concerned Administrative Authority or even concerned Gram Panchyat. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to represent in the 3 matter in accordance with law to the Competent Authority. On receipt of petitioner’s representation, appropriate call in accordance with law shall be taken by the Competent Authority on the subject matter, preferably within three weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. Opportunity of hearing be also provided to the petitioner while deciding her representation. Needless to say that the order so passed shall also be communicated to her. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 14, 2026 Judge yogesh