Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7574 (HP)

STATE OF HP AND OTHERS v. Dhano AND ANOTHER

CMP.M/288/2026 · 2026-03-20

Bipin Chander Negi, Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia

Special Leave Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 288 of 2026 in LPA No. 159 of 2026 Decided on: 20.03.2026 State of H.P. and Ors. .…Appellants. Versus Dhano and Anr. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicants : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 9057 of 2025, decided on 30.05.2025, titled as Dhano vs. State of H.P. and others, and is barred by 142 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:8824 ) days, whereby innocuous direction has been given to decide the representation dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) within a period of six weeks, keeping in view the settled law in LPA No. 196 of 2022 titled Roop Lal Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. 2. It is not disputed that SLP No. 1007 of 2004, titled State of H.P. Vs. Roop Lal, was dismissed on 18.03.2025 and thereafter review petition was also dismissed on 06.02.2026. Thus, the appeal has been filed even though the SLP had already been dismissed prior thereto. 3. In similar circumstances, we have also dismissed CMP(M) No. 129 of 2026 in LPA No. 105 of 2026 titled State of H.P. vs. Niram Chand, on 05.03.2026 4. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the filing of this appeal was totally misconceived as it is the bounden duty of the State to take a decision on the said representation as directed by the Single Judge in view of the law laid down earlier and which the respondent/State is bound to 3 ( 2026:HHC:8824 ) follow. Therefore, we condone the delay of 142 days in filing the appeal, but dismiss the appeal, being misconceived. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, so also the pending application(s) if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C.Negi) Judge 20th March, 2026 (sushma)