2026:HHC:44348 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 18149 of 2026 Date of Decision: October 9, 2026 Gulab Singh …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6. Mr. Surender Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Nemo for respondents Nos. 7 to 10. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral) Though, prima facie, this Court is of the view that present petition is not maintainable, rather, appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file an election petition, but having taken note of innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to issue direction to Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala/respondent No.4 to decide his pending representation, Annexure P-6, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of official respondents, who are represented by the office of learned Advocate General and Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate. 2. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of with a direction to Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala/respondent No.4 to decide the pending representation, Annexure P-6, dated 24.7.2026, if no already decided, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:44348 needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of this order, shall afford opportunity of hearing to petitioner and all stake- holders including private respondents. In view of above, petition is disposed of. All pending applications stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 9, 2026 (vikrant)