1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.131 of 2026 Date of Decision : 12.03.2026 State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Appellants Versus Indra Devi and another …… Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ajay Mohan Goel (oral) CMP(M) No.156 of 2025 Heard learned Advocate General for the applicants. 2. By way of present application, a prayer has been made for condonation of 133 days’ delay in filing the appeal. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No.131 of 2026 3. By way of the present appeal, the State has assailed the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in CWP No.8152 of 2025, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 titled Indra Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 20.05.2025, in terms whereof, the petition filed by the respondent, herein, has been allowed in the following terms:- “3. Case file shows that the petitioner has not preferred any representation for the redressal of her grievances. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to prefer representation within two weeks, which shall be decided by the respondents/competent authority in accordance with law, keeping in vide decision rendered in Roop Lal within six weeks from the date of receipt of the same. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioner.” 4. In the light of the fact that directions passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge is only to consider the case of the petitioner keeping in view the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No(s).1007/2024, titled The State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Roop Lal, decided on 18.03.2025, we are of the considered view that the present appeal is misconceived, as all that the Hon’ble Single Judge has done is to issue a mandamus to the respondents to take a call in consonance with the judgment referred therein. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge ( Bipin Chander Negi) March 12, 2026 (KS) Judge