2026:HHC:14241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6467 2026 Date of Decision: 30.04.2026. Piare Lal Kondal ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Ms. Sangeeta Vasudeva, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Janak Raj, CGC, for respondent No.1. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 6. Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No7 Sushil Kukreja, Judge Notice. Mr. Janak Raj, learned Central Government Counsel, Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Jai Ram Sharma and Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. Learned counsel for the parties stated at the Bar that similar   matters   were   considered   by   this   Court   in   a   batch   of cases, lead case of which is  CWP No.1540 of 2013 (Bakshi Ram vs. Union of India), decided on  6th November, 2013 and prayed that  this writ  petition be  disposed of in terms of the judgment (supra). Their statements are taken on record. 3. It is apt to reproduce herein relevant portion of the judgment referred to above: ­ “2. It   is   not   in   dispute   that   after   the   judgment rendered   by   the   Apex   Court   in   Pradesh   Pong   Bandh Visthapit Samiti, Rajasthan & Another versus Union of India & Others, (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 749, a high power committee has been constituted to look into the   grievance   of   the   petitioners   and   similar   situate persons. This committee is still functional. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to make representation(s) before the high power committee. The committee shall look into the grievance of the petitioners and similar situate persons within a period of six months after receipt of the representation(s). The committee shall also be guided by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.492 of 2007, titled as “Ashwani Kumar V. Union of India”, decided on 29.3.2011, against which an SLP was preferred which was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court   on   2.1.2013.   It   is   made   clear   that   the limitation/delay   shall   not   come   in   the   way   of   the petitioner(s). It is also made clear that the high power committee shall decide the cases individually and pass speaking/detailed order(s), strictly as per the averments made in the representation(s). It is further clarified that if the land is available in Sriganganagar (reserved area), this aspect shall also be taken into consideration. The respondent­State is also directed to issue the eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioners in CWPs No.11070 of 2011­G and 1158 of 2013 in order to enable them to present their cases before the high power committee.” 3 4. It is also stated that the judgment referred to above was also followed by the Division Bench of this Court and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in SLP(C) No.21904   of   2012  (State   of   Rajasthan   &   another   vs. Ashwani Kumar Sharma & others), decided on 2nd  January, 2013 and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. 5. In   the   given   circumstances,   this   writ   petition   is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment in Bakshi Ram’s case, supra,   with   liberty   to   the   writ   petitioner   to   file representation   within   four   weeks   before   the   High   Power Committee. The said Committee is directed to decide the same within a period of three months 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. (Sushil Kukreja) Judge 30th April, 2026 (Kiran)