IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1278/2026 Decided on: 30.07.2026 Anju Devi & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 5. Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate for respondent No.2 to 4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Even though the respondents have not filed reply to the writ petition, however, considering the limited grievance of the petitioner, the matter has been heard accordingly. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “i. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to decide the application of the petitioners dated 01.02.2024 (Annexure P-6) within a time bound manner, by taking into consideration the Resettlement, Relief, Rehabilitation and Compensation Policy (Annexure P-4), since the respondent authorities have recently given appointment to six persons of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 similarly situated families, but as far as the families of the petitioners are concerned, their claim has been declined without any justification. ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to provide employment to the members of the petitioners' families within time bound manner in terms of the Resettlement, Relief, Rehabilitation Compensation Policy (Annexure P-4), since in terms of the said policy, the respondent authorities have provided employment to six persons of the similarly situated families in the year 2025.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have represented on 01.02.2024 (Annexure P-6) to respondent No.3 for providing employment to the members of their families, who fall within the definition of landless persons or whose source of livelihood came to an end due to the construction of the project. However, till date, the said representation has not been taken to its logical conclusion and has not been responded to by the competent authority. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has apprised the Court that under the Resettlement, Relief, Rehabilitation and Compensation Policy (Annexure P-4) of respondent No.2, it is respondent No.5-Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, who is the competent authority to decide such representation as moved by the petitioners vide Annexure P-6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied if respondent No.5/competent 3 authority is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners, in accordance with law and the applicable policy, in a time-bound manner. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to this prayer. 3. Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.5-Deputy Commissioner, Kullu/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners, in accordance with law and in terms of applicable policy, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned stakeholders, including respondents No.3 and 4, within a period of eight weeks from today. All contentions of the parties are left open. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the parties. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 30th July, 2026(rohit)