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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the judgment in CWP No.1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma and Another v. State of H.P. and Others), expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and passing appropriate orders; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court if she still remains aggrieved; pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma and Another v. State of H.P. and Others), in a time-bound manner.

Court's answer

This Court found that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by this Court, and that no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the judgment supra.

Ratio / Principle

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, with liberty reserved to her to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition — disposal with direction to decide case in light of prior Coordinate Bench judgment. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral) disposed of CWP No.16141 of 2025 (Smt. Kalpana Kumari v. State of H.P. & Others) even before issuance of notices, on the joint position of counsel, holding that the issue raised stood already adjudicated by this Court and directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the judgment in CWP No.1638 of 2024, Mohit Sharma and Another v. State of H.P. and Others, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and passing appropriate orders. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved, and pending application(s), if any, were also disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.16141 of 2025

Date of Decision: 15.10.2025

_______________________________________________________ Smt. Kalpana Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner: Mr. Pranav Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocates General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Others, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and case of the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment.

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

2

Having perused the averments contained in the petition

as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment supra.

Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

October 15, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)