1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14568 of 2026 Decided on: 25.08.2026 Dharmender Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Naveen Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 4. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 & 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 4, which is waived by Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel, respectively. Considering the grievance of the petitioner and the nature of the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for the reply from the appearing respondents. Notice is also not required to be issued to 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 respondent No.5. The matter has been accordingly heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief: - “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directed to the respondent No.5 to pay compensation to the petitioner in terms of the office order passed by the respondent No.1 on 09.04.2012 (vide Annexure P- 1) in the sum of ₹1306 Lacs towards damage to crop/horticulture produce and ₹766 Lacs for loss of customary Forest rights to the affected villages due to project construction by the respondent No.5.” 3. Petitioner seek parity viz-a-viz those who find mention in the office order dated 27.01.2018 (Annexure P- 2) for claiming compensation for the alleged crop losses on account of setting up of the Hydro Electric Project by respondent No.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred his representation dated 21.07.2026 (Annexure P-3) to respondent No.1 annexed in the writ petition, however, the same has not been considered and decided till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the competent authority is directed to take an appropriate decision on the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, keeping in view Annexure P-2 and in accordance with law, within a time-bound manner. 3 Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.3/competent authority to take an appropriate decision on the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, keeping in view Annexure P-2 and in accordance with law, after associating all concerned stakeholders, including the petitioner and respondent No.5, within a period of eight weeks from today. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the parties. Needless to clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties, including the issue of delay and laches, are also left open. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 25, 2026 Judge yogesh