2026:HHC:41457 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16802 of 2026 Date of Decision: 25.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Badri Sain …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents- State. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Harshita Dogra, Advocate, for the respondent- HPSEBL. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Through instant petition, very innocuous prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to issue direction to responder No.2 to decide case No. 1PP & L/2023, titled Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited vs. Yashwant Singh, filed under Sections 5, 6 & 7 of the HP Public Premises & Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act 1971, for eviction from the public premises, expeditiously. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:41457 2. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who otherwise represented by learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. Harshita Dogra, Advocate, representing the respondent-Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner, is that though eviction proceedings, as detailed hereinabove, were initiated against respondent No.5, Yashwant Singh son of the petitioner, which was allowed by Collector, Sub Division Nichar at Bhawanagar, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh vide order dated 17.05.2025, however afore order was subsequently remanded in an appeal filed by respondent No.5 vide order dated 25.09.2025. Since after passing of remand order, as detailed hereinabove, nothing much has been done in the case filed against respondent No.5, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to respondent No.2 to decide the appeal expeditiously. 4. Having taken note of the fact that complaint in the case at hand was filed in the year 2023, coupled with the fact that matter already stands remanded back to respondent No.2 for deciding the 3 2026:HHC:41457 same afresh, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to respondent No.2 to ensure that case, as detailed hereinabove, is decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing needful, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders including respondent No.5. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 25,2026 (shankar)