2026:HHC:39594 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15653 of 2026 Date of Decision: 16.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Ramesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Sutlej Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent- State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Notice. Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and respondents No.3 & 4, respectively. 2. In view of the grievance of the petitioner, there is no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents. Matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:39594 3. This writ petition has been filed on the assertion that petitioner’s land was acquired for the construction of Luhri Hydro Electric Project Stage -1( 210 MW) Compensation was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner and his family were rendered houseless & landless on account of acquisition of land. According to the petitioner, the respondents had framed a Scheme for Resettlement and Rehabilitation of the persons affected on account of construction of Luhri Hydro Electric Project Stage -1( 210 MW) and, in terms of Clause-7(4) thereof, one member of each affected family was eligible for employment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that repeated representations have been preferred by the petitioner, seeking employment for his family. Attention in this regard was invited to Annexure P-2. It appears that notice was issued on behalf of the petitioner vide Annexure P-2. The same was not responded to by the respondents. 5. Be that as it may, in the interest of justice, since respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner, Shimla is the authorized officer under the Scheme in question, therefore, without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.4 to consider and decide the case of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today after associating all stakeholders including 3 2026:HHC:39594 respondent No.1 to 3. Needless to clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties on both sides are left open, as also the eligibility of the petitioner to claim the benefits under the Resettlement & Rehabilitation Scheme. The orders so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 16,2026 (shankar)