Petitioners alleged their representations seeking redressal of grievances, in light of settled legal position, were not decided by the State. Without examining merits, the Court directed the competent authority to consider and decide the representations in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.13086 of 2025 alongwith connected matters
Decided on: 14th August, 2025
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.13086 of 2025 |
|---|
| Sapna …..Petitioner |
| Versus |
| State of H.P. and others .....Respondents |
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.13092 of 2025 |
| Vishno Kumari …..Petitioner |
| Versus |
| State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 3. CWP No.13126 of 2025 Nand Lal …..Petitioner |
| Versus |
| State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram |
| Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua |
| Whether approved for reporting?1 |
| For the Petitioners: Mr. M.A. Safee and Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocates. |
| For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
2
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. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed separate representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions, to the respondents for the redressal of their grievances raised in these writ petitions. Petitioners’ grievance is that the representations preferred by them for redressal of their grievances in light of settled legal position have not been adjudicated till date. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in 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
3
the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law 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.
August 14, 2025 Mukesh
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents/competent authority can be directed to decide the petitioners' pending representations in accordance with law within a fixed time.
Sapna
Vishno Kumari
Nand Lal
State of H.P. and others
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
