Disposed¶27

Mohinder Singh and Others v. the State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC29 Oct 2025CWP/16786/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Undecided representation; representation dated 25.09.2025; Annexure P-4; applicability of Mohit Sharma judgment; CWP No.1638 of 2024; direction to competent authority to decide representation in accordance with law within six weeks; decision to be communicated; disposed of without examining merits; Himachal Pradesh High Court; Mohinder Singh v. State of H.P.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representations dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law, taking into consideration the judgment in Mohit Sharma, within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶27

Mohinder Singh and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representations dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-4), seeking applicability of the judgment in Mohit Sharma, in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule.

¶25

Court's answer

Having regard to the submissions, but 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 petitioners' representations dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law, taking into consideration the judgment in Mohit Sharma.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The decision on the representations is to be made within a period of six weeks, and the decision so arrived at shall be communicated to the petitioners.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No.16786 of 2025, decided 29.10.2025 — Mohinder Singh and others v. State of H.P. and another (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.). Petitioners' representations dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) seeking applicability of the judgment in Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024) were lying undecided before the respondents/competent authority. Without examining the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide those representations in accordance with law, taking into consideration the judgment in Mohit Sharma, within six weeks, and to communicate the decision so arrived at to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stood disposed of likewise.

¶1

¶2

( 2025:HHC:35868 )

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶4

CWP No.16786 of 2025

¶5

Decided on: 29^th October, 2025

¶6

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mohinder Singh and others …..Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of H.P. and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

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

¶11

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶12

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶13

For the Petitioners: Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate.

¶14

For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶15

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

3. Petitioners grievance is that their representations dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.² have not been decided till date by the

¶20

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:35868 )

¶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-4) 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

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶29

October 29, 2025 yogesh

Mohinder Singh and Others v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohinder Singh and Others v. the State of Hp and Another

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.