2026:HHC:13265 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No.36 of 2026 Date of Decision: 23.04.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Mukesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others … Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith and Ms. Saroj, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): CMP.M No.278 of 2026 By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of applicant for condonation of delay in maintaining the accompanying review petition. 2. Despite opportunity, no reply to the application has been filed and as such, this Court has no option but to decide the application on the basis of averments contained in the application, which clearly reveals that the delay in maintaining the accompanying review petition is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather same has occurred on account of the circumstances, which were completely beyond the control of the applicant and as such, delay in filing the review petition, which in my considered view 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:13265 2 has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Review Petition No.36 of 2026 3. Be registered. 4. By way of instant review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, prayer has been made on behalf of review-petitioner to recall/modify the judgment dated 08.12.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.17497 of 2025, thereby directing the respondents to decide the pending representation dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-8 in CWP No.17497 of 2025). 5. Though Mr. Ravi Kumar, learned Deputy Advocate General, attempted to argue that no order on merit has been passed and as such, no prejudice, if any, can be said to be caused to the review-petitioner, however, having carefully perused averments contained in the review petition vis-a-vis judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing the review-petitioner that there is error apparent on the face of record. This Court finds that representation dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-8 in CWP No.17497 of 2025) stood already decided at the time of passing of judgment, sought to be reviewed and as such, there was no occasion to issue direction to the respondents to decide the same again. 6. Otherwise also, careful perusal of relief prayed for in the writ petition clearly reveals that order passed upon the representation dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-8 in CWP No.17497 of 2025) was sought to be 2026:HHC:13265 3 quashed and modified, but inadvertently, on the date of passing of judgment, proxy counsel representing the petitioner made a statement that representation dated 29.04.2025 filed by the petitioner is pending and as such, direction may be issued to decide the same. This Court, taking note of afore submission made by proxy counsel representing the petitioner, proceeded to pass the judgment dated 08.12.2025, thereby directing the respondent-department to decide the representation dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-8 in CWP No.17497 of 2025), which otherwise stood decided. 7. Since petitioner had laid challenge to orders dated 07.08.2025 and 10.09.2025 (Annexures P-11 and P-12 in CWP No.17497 of 2025) i.e. orders passed upon the representation dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-8 in CWP No.17497 of 2025), there was no occasion, if any, for this Court to direct respondents to decide the representation dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-8 in CWP No.17497 of 2025) and as such, prayer made on behalf of the review-petitioner deserves to be allowed. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present review petition is allowed and judgment dated 08.12.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.17497 of 2025 is recalled and CWP No.17497 of 2025 is restored to its original number. Registry is directed to list the matter for hearing before the appropriate Bench having the Roster. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 23, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)