IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16744 of 2026 Decided on: 25th September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Anuradha Kapil …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Sharma and Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner has prayed for grant of several reliefs, foundation of which rests upon applicability of Taj Mohammad and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others2, State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Versus Sheela Devi3, Jagdish Chand Versus State 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.2004 of 2017 decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023. 3 SLP (Civil) No.10399/2020, decided on 07.08.2023 2 of Himachal Pradesh and others4 and Arun Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had preferred a representation on 25.09.2023 (Annexure P-6) to the respondents, but the same has not been considered and decided till date. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case she is permitted to make a comprehensive representation to respondent No.1/competent authority for the redressal of her grievances raised in this writ petition and the said authority is directed to decide the same in accordance with law within a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to represent to respondent No.1/competent authority seeking redressal of her grievances raised in this writ petition. In case such a representation is so made within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks 4 CWP No.2411 of 2019, decided on 10.01.2020 5 CWP No.5290 of 2023, decided on 03.11.2023 3 thereafter. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 25, 2026 Judge Mukesh