Disposed¶21

Hari Singh and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Oct 2025CWP/15940/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus to decide pending representation; representation seeking applicability of Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP 4830/2023, dt. 07.04.2025) undecided; direction to decide within six weeks and communicate; merits not examined; writ petitions disposed of; Himachal Pradesh High Court; CWP 15940/2025; CWP 15944/2025; 10.10.2025; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Inder Singh Thakur judgment, within six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioner(s); pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶21

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP Nos. 15940 & 15944/2025 Decided on: 10.10.2025

¶3

1. CWP No. 15940/2025

¶4

Hari Singh & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents.

¶5

2. CWP No. 15944/2025

¶6

Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. …Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents

¶9

Coram

¶10

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶12

For the petitioner(s): Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate in both the petitions.

¶13

For the respondent(s): Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, in all the petitions.

¶14

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

¶15

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their respective

¶20

representation(s) annexed with these writ petitions, seeking applicability of Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. 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.

¶21

Having regard to the above submissions , but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are 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, within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶22

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶23

10^th October, 2025(rohit)

¶24

2CWP No. 4830 of 2023, decided on 07.04.2025

Hari Singh and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Singh 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

Ravinder Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Netar Singh Vs Land Acquisition Officer (Slau)-Cum-Competent Authority and Another

Subhadra Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Monika Joshi Vs the State of Hp and Another

Ajay Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sunil Sharma and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others