Ravi Kant Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC29 Oct 2025CWP/16722/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court; CWP No.16722 of 2025; decided 29.10.2025; Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua; Ravi Kant Sharma v. State of H.P. and Anr; Kush Sharma for petitioner; Y.P.S.Dhaulta Additional Advocate General for respondents; undecided representation Annexure P-4; Yashwant Kumar Vs. State of HP and Ors CWP No. 8148 of 2022 (21.03.2024); direction to decide representation in accordance with law within six weeks; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Yashwant Kumar judgment, within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner. ¶¶24

Ravi Kant Sharma 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.16722 of 2025 Decided on: 29.10. 2025

¶3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ravi Kant Sharma …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. and Anr .....Respondents

¶6

Coram

¶7

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate.

¶10

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶12

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

3. Petitioner’s grievance is that his representation,

¶16

Annexure P-4 seeking applicability of Yashwant Kumar

¶17

Vs. State of HP and Ors² has not been decided till date by

¶18

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

¶19

2 CWP No. 8148 of 2022, decided alongwith connected matters on 21.03.2024

¶20

¶21

the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for

¶22

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.

¶23

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 in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Yashwant Kumar² within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶24

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

¶25

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶26

October 29, 2025 R.Atal

Ravi Kant Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kant Sharma 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

Babita Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ramesh Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Ram Singh Vs Hrtc and Others

Rumal Singh and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Monika Kashyap Vs the State of Hp and Another

Sanjay Kumar Vs Hrtc and Ors.