Disposed¶22

Sushma Kumari v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC14 Oct 2025CWP/16170/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sushma Kumari v. State of H.P. and others; CWP No.16170 of 2025; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.; decided 14.10.2025; direction to respondents/competent authority to decide representation Annexure P-6; applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No.1638 of 2024 (decided 29.11.2024); six-week timeline; decision to be communicated to petitioner; merits not examined; Amit Kumar Dhumal; L.N. Sharma; Menka Raj Chauhan.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law, taking into consideration the judgment in Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024), within six weeks, and to communicate the decision so arrived at to the petitioner. ¶22

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-6), seeking applicability of the Mohit Sharma judgment, in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Without examining the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law.

¶21

Key takeaways

In deciding the representation, the respondents/competent authority are to take into consideration the above judgment in the case of Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024).ratio¶21
The decision on the representation is to be arrived at within a period of six weeks and communicated to the petitioner.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) — CWP No.16170 of 2025, Sushma Kumari v. State of H.P. and others, decided on 14th October, 2025: The petitioner's representation (Annexure P-6) seeking applicability of the judgment in 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. With consent of learned counsel for the parties and without examining the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing 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 so arrived at 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.16170 of 2025

¶3

Decided on: 14^th October, 2025

¶4

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sushma Kumari …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

¶9

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Advocate.

¶12

For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

3. Petitioner’s grievance is that her representation (Annexure P-6) seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.² have not been decided

¶17

till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned

¶18

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

¶19

2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024

¶20

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.

¶21

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 (Annexure P-6) 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.

¶22

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

¶23

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶24

October 14, 2025 yogesh

Sushma Kumari v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushma Kumari 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

Suresh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rajesh Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Parshotam Singh Vs the Hrtc and Another

Shakti Ram Vs the Hrtc and Others

Shyam Prasad Chatterji Vs the Hrtc and Others

Trilok Nath Vs the State of Hp and Others