IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11901 of 2026 Decided on: 17.07.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rohit Thakur …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others . .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice is confined to respondent No. 1 to 6, which is waived by Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General. In the context of grievance of the petitioner and the order being passed hereinafter, neither reply to the writ petition is required to be called from the appearing respondents nor notice is required to be issued to 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 respondent No.7. The matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the Respondent No. 2 & 3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 28.03.2026 (Annexure P-6) within a time bound manner and remove the encroachment of the private respondent from the Government as well as Forest land.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite having represented to the respondents on 28.03.2026, seeking removal of encroachment by the private respondent over the Government land as also the forest land described in the writ petition, no effective action in the matter has been taken by the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case respondents No. 3 / competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation dated 28.03.2026 (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner, 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, this writ 3 petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No. 3/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of three months from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 17, 2026 Judge R.Atal