IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13611 of 2026 Decided on: 10.08.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Khem Ram alias Khem Raj …..Petitioner Versus State of HP & Ors. ....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 7. Nemo for respondents No. 8 and 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner has prayed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i). Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents No. 1 to 7 to consider and decide the representations/complaints submitted by the petitioner, particularly representations dated 18.03.2026, 15.04.2026 and 22.04.2026, in a time-bound manner and in accordance with law; ii). Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents No. 2 to 5 to register an FIR on the basis of complaints submitted by the petitioner against respondents No. 8 and 9 regarding the offences of cheating, forgery, fabrication of documents, criminal 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 conspiracy, misuse of Special Power of Attorney and other cognizable offences disclosed from the record, and thereafter conduct a fair, impartial and expeditious investigation; (iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents No. 1, 6 and 7 to conduct an inquiry into the manner in which permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 was granted in favour of respondent No. 8 vide order dated 23.10.2024 and to examine the genuineness and legality of the documents relied upon for. obtaining such permission; iv). Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the official respondents to ensure protection of the petitioner's possession and property rights and to prevent any coercive action, interference or dispossession at the hands of respondents No. 8 and 9.” 2. After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to avail the remedy as may be available to the petitioner in law for the redressal of grievances raised in this writ petition. 3. Granting such liberty, present petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 10, 2026 Judge R.Atal