Disposed¶26

Neha Saini v. State of Hp and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC30 Oct 2025CWP/15356/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Neha Saini Vs. State of H.P. and Anr; CWP No.15356 of 2025; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided 30.10.2025; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.; direction to decide representation dated 06.07.2025 (Annexure P-4) within six weeks; applicability of Mohit Sharma, CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024; disposed of without examining merits; Chaman Singh Verma for petitioner; Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General for respondents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 06.07.2025 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law, taking into consideration the judgment in Mohit Sharma, within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶26

Neha Saini Vs State of Hp and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority ought to be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 06.07.2025 (Annexure P-4), seeking applicability of the judgment in Mohit Sharma, in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule.

¶24

Court's answer

The respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 06.07.2025 in accordance with law, taking into consideration the judgment in Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024).

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The decision on the representation is to be made within a period of six weeks, and the decision so arrived at shall be communicated to the petitioner.

¶25

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of without examining the merits of the matter.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP No.15356 of 2025, decided on 30.10.2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) - Non-disposal of representation. The petitioner's grievance was that her representation dated 06.07.2025 (Annexure P-4) seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024) had not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. Without examining the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Mohit Sharma judgment, within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, were also disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.15356 of 2025

¶3

Decided on: 30.10.2025

¶4

Neha Saini …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and Anr

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Chaman Singh Verma, Advocate.

¶12

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶13

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶14

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

¶15

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶16

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the

¶17

parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

¶18

3. Petitioner’s grievance is that her representation dated 06.07.2025 (Annexure P-4) seeking applicability of

¶19

Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.² has

¶20

not been decided till date by the respondents/competent

¶21

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶22

2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024

¶23

¶24

authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

¶25

4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Mohit Sharma² within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶26

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶27

October 30, 2025 R.Atal

¶28

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Neha Saini v. State of Hp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neha Saini v. State of Hp and Anr.

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

Ravi Kant Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Mohinder Singh and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

The Managing Director Hp State the Mall Shimla Cooperative Bank Vs Tanuj Vir Singh Tomar and Others

Sunita Chauhan Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rajender Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Raj Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others