Disposed¶22

Ram Kali v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Jul 2025CWP/11471/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ram Kali v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.; CWP No. 11471 of 2025; decided 17.7.2025; Sandeep Sharma, J.; claim for benefit/parity of judgment in CWP No. 2274 of 2024 (Satya Devi v. State of H.P. & Ors., 28.05.2024); Satya Devi judgment assailed in SLP(C) No. 20496 of 2024; Supreme Court interim order dated 24.03.2025 in connected SLPs with lead case State of H.P. v. Inder Pal (SLP(C) Diary No. 11306 of 2025) staying operation of impugned orders; petition disposed of with benefits conditional on outcome of Inder Pal; no substantive relief; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; petition disposed of with a direction that benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner under Satya Devi's case shall abide by the outcome of Inder Pal's case before the Hon'ble Apex Court. ¶22

Ram Kali Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the decision rendered in CWP No. 2274 of 2024 (Satya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) when the mandate of that judgment stands stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶12

Court's answer

Since the mandate contained in the Satya Devi judgment along with connected matters has been stayed by order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 24.03.2025 (lead case State of H.P. v. Inder Pal), the prayer made in the instant petition cannot be allowed.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of with a direction that benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner under Satya Devi's case shall abide by the outcome of Inder Pal's case instituted by the respondents against the common judgment rendered in Satya Devi's case.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA — CWP No. 11471 of 2025 (decided 17.7.2025) — Sandeep Sharma, J. — Ram Kali v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. — Petitioner sought benefit of the judgment in CWP No. 2274 of 2024, Satya Devi v. State of H.P. & Ors., decided 28.05.2024. Learned Additional Advocate General stated that the Satya Devi judgment stands assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 20496 of 2024, and an Apex Court order dated 24.03.2025 in several connected SLPs (lead case SLP(C) Diary No. 11306 of 2025, State of H.P. & Ors. v. Inder Pal) stayed, in the meantime, the operation of the impugned order(s). Holding that the mandate of the Satya Devi judgment with connected matters has been stayed, the Court found the prayer in the petition could not be allowed; with the consent of counsel, the petition was disposed of with a direction that benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner under Satya Devi's case shall abide by the outcome of Inder Pal's case. Pending applications, if any, disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.11471of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.7.2025

¶3

Ram Kali

¶4

……...Petitioner Versus

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

¶6

…....Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Kush Sharma and Mr. Jagmohan Sharma, Advocates.

¶10

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, D+eputy Advocate General.

¶11

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶12

Through instant petition, petitioner seeks benefit of the decision rendered in judgment passed in CWP No. 2274 of 2024 titled

¶13

as Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. decided on

¶14

28.05.2024.

¶15

2. Notice. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of respondents-State. Mr. Verma, states that since judgment passed in Satya Devi’s (supra) has been assailed before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.20496 of 2024, relief, as prayed for,

¶16

¶17

in the instant petition cannot be allowed. Copy of an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 24.03.2025 in several connected Special Leave Petitions, with lead case being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 11306 of 2025 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Inder Pal, has been made available to this Court during proceedings of the case and same reads as under:-

¶18

“(1) Delay condoned. (2) Let the notice be issued to the respondents(s) in all

¶19

the matters.

¶20

(3) Tag alongwith SPL(C) No. 20496 of 2024

¶21

(4) In the meantime the operation of the impugned order(s), is/are stayed.”

¶22

3. Since it is quite apparent from the aforesaid order that mandate contained in the judgment passed in Satya Devi’s case alongwith connected matters, has been stayed, prayer made in the instant petition cannot be allowed, but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present petition is disposed of with a direction that benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner under Satya Devi’s case, shall abide by the outcome of Inder Pal’s case instituted by the respondents against the common judgment rendered in Satya Devi’s case. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶23

July 17, 2025

¶24

(manjit)

Ram Kali v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kali v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suryavanshi Vikas Samiti Bayal Vs Torul S. Raveesh and Others

Mukesh Kumar Walia Vs the State of Hp and Others

Khem Raj and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Sachinder Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Bijma Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others