IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.402 of 2026 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 7th January, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.402 of 2026 Deepak Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.412 of 2026 Tilak Raj …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.416 of 2026 Raksha Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.428 of 2026 Rahul Sondal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. CWP No.536 of 2026 Milap Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ravneet Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 3. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions as Annexures P-3 and P-6, seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2 have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations in 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 3 accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners (Annexures P-3 and P-6) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Mohit Sharma2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 07, 2026 Judge Mukesh