Disposed¶25

Mahender Kumar and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Sept 2025CWP/14762/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Undecided representations; direction to competent authority to decide representations in accordance with law; applicability of Yashwant Kumar judgment (CWP No. 8148 of 2022, decided 21.03.2024); six-week time-bound direction; disposal without examining merits; communication of order; miscellaneous applications disposed; Himachal Pradesh; CWP 14760 & 14762 of 2025; Jyotsna Rewal Dua.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representation(s) in accordance with law, taking into consideration the judgment in Yashwant Kumar, within six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood disposed of. ¶25

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representation(s) seeking applicability of the Yashwant Kumar judgment, in accordance with law, within a time-bound manner.

¶24

Court's answer

Without examining the merits of the matter, the writ petitions were disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representation(s) in accordance with law, taking into consideration the judgment in Yashwant Kumar.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The consideration and decision of the representation(s) was to be completed within a period of six weeks.

¶25

Key takeaways

The order so passed pursuant to the direction was to be communicated to the petitioners.ratio¶25
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, were to stand disposed of.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.), CWP Nos. 14760 & 14762/2025 (Santosh Kumar & Ors. and Mahender Kumar & Ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors.), decided 12.09.2025: The Court, without examining the merits, disposed of the writ petitions in which the grievance was non-disposal of the petitioners' representations seeking applicability of Yashwant Kumar v. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP No. 8148 of 2022, decided a/w connected matters on 21.03.2024). The respondents/competent authority were directed to consider and decide the representations in accordance with law, taking the said judgment into consideration, within six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP Nos. 14760 & 14762/2025

¶3

Decided on: 12.09.2025

¶4

1. CWP No. 14760/2025

¶5

Santosh Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

¶8

2. CWP No. 14762/2025

¶9

Mahender Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents

¶12

Coram

¶13

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

¶14

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶15

For the petitioner(s): Mr. Yogesh Chandel, Advocate, in both the petitions.

¶16

For the respondent(s):

¶17

Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, in both the petitions.

¶18

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

¶19

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional

¶20

Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents, in both the petitions.

¶21

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶22

¶23

2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their respective

¶24

representation(s) annexed with these writ petitions, seeking applicability of Yashwant Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.² have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the petitioner(s) would be content, in case, respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation(s) of the petitioner(s), in accordance with law, within a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer.

¶25

3 . Having regard to the above submissions , but without examining the merits of the matter, the instant writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation(s) of the petitioner(s), in accordance with law and as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in case of Yashwant Kumar² , within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶26

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶27

12^th September, 2025(rohit)

¶28

2CWP No. 8148 of 2022, decided a/w connected matters on 21.03.2024

Mahender Kumar and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahender Kumar and Others 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

Uttam Chand Vs the Cskhpkv

NHAI Vs Mansha Ram

Reeta Devi Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Arun Kumar Vs the Hrtc and Another

Surinder Kumar Sharma and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sonika Vs the State of Hp and Others