Disposed¶10

Bhim Sen v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Oct 2025CWP/16314/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Undecided representation before competent authority; direction to decide representation in accordance with law within six weeks taking into consideration Mohit Sharma v. State of H.P. (CWP No. 1638 of 2024, decided 29.11.2024); writ petitions disposed of without examining merits; time-bound disposal; Reenu Thakur; Bhim Sen; Anil Kumar; State of H.P.; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; CWP Nos. 16312, 16314, 16316 of 2025; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.; decided 16.10.2025.

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 Mohit Sharma judgment, within six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners. ¶10

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 16312/2025 a/w connected matters Decided on: 16.10.2025

¶3

1. CWP No. 16312/2025 Reenu Thakur & Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No.16314/2025 Bhim Sen …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 3. CWP No.16316/2025 Anil Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Rajat Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Pranav Kaushal, Advocate, in all the matters. For the respondent(s): Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General in all the matters.

¶4

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

¶5

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their respective

¶9

representation(s) annexed with these writ petitions, seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma 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.

¶10

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 in case of Mohit Sharma² , 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.

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶12

16^th October, 2025(rohit)

¶13

2CWP No. 1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024

Bhim Sen v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhim Sen 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

Balwant Singh and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Sanjay Singh Thakur and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Hari Dutt Sharma Vs Ashish Kohli

Meena Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Jagdish Chand Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Ors.

Devinder Singh Madaik Vs the Hptdcl and Others