IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16080 of 2026 Date of Decision: 15.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Charanji Lal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. __________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case the present writ petition is directed to be treated as a representation by the competent authority. 2. Having regard to the nature of the order proposed to be passed, this Court does not find any necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise duly represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. 2 3. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to treat the present writ petition as a representation on behalf of the petitioner and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. September 15, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge