Disposed¶15

Kishori Lal v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Sept 2025CWP/14850/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kishori Lal v. State of H.P. & Ors.; CWP No. 14850/2025; Himachal Pradesh High Court; decided 15.09.2025; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.; direction to decide pending representation dated 16.07.2025 within six weeks; applicability of Inder Singh (CWP 3628/2020) and Ghanshyam Dass (CWP 2056/2023); time-bound disposal; no merits examined.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-8), in accordance with law and taking into consideration Inder Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. and Ghanshyam Dass Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., within six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. ¶15

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-8), seeking applicability of Inder Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. and Ghanshyam Dass Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., in accordance with law within a time-bound period.

¶9

Court's answer

Without examining the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-8), in accordance with law and taking into consideration the above judgments (Inder Singh and Ghanshyam Dass), within a period of six weeks.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The order so passed shall be communicated to the petitioner, and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP No. 14850/2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) — Petitioner's representation dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-8) seeking applicability of Inder Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP No. 3628 of 2020, decided on 05.01.2021) and Ghanshyam Dass Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP No.2056/2023 decided a/w connected matters on 29.03.2024) remained undecided. Held: without examining the merits, petition disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation, in accordance with law and taking into consideration the above judgments, within six weeks, and communicate the order so passed; pending miscellaneous application(s) disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 14850/2025 Decided on: 15.09.2025 Kishori Lal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

¶3

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶4

For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶5

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

¶6

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

¶7

Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶8

2. Petitioner’s grievance is that his representation dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-8) seeking applicability of Inder Singh Vs.

¶9

State of H.P. & Ors.² and Ghanshyam Dass Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.³ has not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be content, in case, respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of

¶10

2CWP No. 3628 of 2020, decided on 05.01.2021

¶11

3 CWP No.2056/2023 decided a/w connected matters on 29.03.2024

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer.

¶15

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 of the petitioner, in accordance with law and as well as taking into consideration the above judgments, within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶16

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶17

15^th September, 2025(rohit)

Kishori Lal v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishori Lal 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

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

Mahender Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sonika Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pushpa Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Bhim Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Anil Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others