Disposed¶27

Sunil Sharma and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Oct 2025CWP/15980/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No. 15980 of 2025; Sunil Sharma and others v. State of H.P. and others; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua; decided 10.10.2025; representation Annexure P-3 undecided; applicability of Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided 29.11.2024); direction to competent authority; six-week timeline; disposed of without examining merits; communication of decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representations (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Mohit Sharma judgment, within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of. ¶27

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

¶1

( 2025:HHC:34361 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 15980 of 2025 Decided on: 10^th October, 2025

¶4

Sunil Sharma and others

¶5

…..Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of H.P. and others

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Coram

¶10

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶12

For the Petitioners: Mr. Alok Ranjan, Advocate.

¶13

For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶14

------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

¶18

3. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representation (Annexure P-3) seeking applicability of

¶19

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

¶20

have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the

¶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

( 2025:HHC:34361 )

¶25

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

¶26

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 representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-3) 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 petitioners.

¶27

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

¶28

October 10, 2025 yogesh

¶29

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Sunil Sharma and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Sharma 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

Hari Singh and Others 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