2026:HHC:39387 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 498 of 2026 Date of decision: 14.09.2026 Rishi Bhati …Appellant Versus Himachal Pradesh University & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellants: Mr. Virender Thakur and Ms. Yamini, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No. 4- Accountant General. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) Consideration in the present appeal is sought to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 11287 of 2026, titled as Rishi Bhati vs. Himachal Pradesh University & Ors., on 10.07.2026, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition keeping in view the huge time gap and the close relationship between the appellant and respondent No. 5 and the relief which was being sought since they are real brothers. 2. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that a writ of mandamus could not be issued after a lapse of nine (9) years from the date of retirement of respondent No. 5, who had superannuated on 31.12.2016. Accordingly, the learned Single 2 2026:HHC:39387 Judge had declined to issue directions for taking legal action against respondent No. 5, including registration of a criminal case and stoppage of his pension, on the ground that the allegations regarding the genuineness of his educational qualification had been raised after an inordinate delay. 3. A perusal of the certificate (Annexure P-1), which was sought to be contested, would go on to show that examination of B.Sc (Agriculture) was held in the year 1978 by Ch. Charan Singh University and respondent No. 5 was declared failed, but thereafter he had got degree in M.Sc, and on the basis of said degree, he had got Job in the year 2003. It is not disputed that representation was filed after a period of almost 10 years on 21.04.2025 (Annexure P-2) after the retirement of the private respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to contend that the information sought by filing the requisite application under the RTI Act had not been supplied, which apparently led to the filing of the writ petition. 5. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge is well within his jurisdiction not to open the proceedings keeping in view the apparent animosity between two brothers at this belated stage. It is settled principle that Writ Court is a Court of discretionary relief and the learned Single 3 2026:HHC:39387 Judge is well within his jurisdiction and wisdom not to open a can of worms at this belated stage. 6. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) 14th September, 2026 (sanjeev) Judge