1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 12393 of 2026 Decided on: 24.07.2026 Akash …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. L.S. Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General, Mr. L.S. Mehta and Ms. Kanta Thakur, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. In view of the grievances, documents appended alongwith the writ petition and nature of order being passed hereinafter, reply of the writ petition is not 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 required to be called from the respondents. The matter has accordingly been heard. 3. The case set up by the petitioner is that he successfully completed the B.A.L.L.B Degree Course from respondent No.4–University under a specific registration number. His name appeared in the student registration as well as in the admission record. The University has issued detailed marks cards to the petitioner for the semester examinations 1st to 8th, however, mark-sheets of 9th & 10th semesters have not been received. It is further the case of the petitioner that though he has successfully completed B.A.L.L.B. Degree course and cleared all the exams, but the respondent-University has not issued him provisional and final degree alongwith other relevant documents till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had made a request to the respondent- University for rectifying the errors. The same was not considered by the Committee duly constituted by the Government for verifying the record and supplying photocopies of relevant documents under the custody of SIT under the Chairmanship of Superintendent of Police, 3 District Solan. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is now squarely covered by Priya Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others2, whereunder, in similar circumstances, petitioner therein was permitted to move appropriate application before the learned Trial Court where the mark sheet in original stood deposited and on receipt of such application, learned Trial Court was to pass appropriate orders. 5. In view of above, without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to move appropriate application before the learned Trial Court where marks sheets in original are lying deposited. In case of moving of such application, the concerned learned Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders thereupon. All rights & contentions of the parties are left open. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 24, 2026 Judge yogesh 2CWP No.2690/2024, decided on 22.04.2025.