Disposed¶20

Ran Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Dec 2025CWP/18968/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ran Singh v. State of H.P. and others, CWP No.18968 of 2025 (HPHC Shimla), decided 03.12.2025, Coram: Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Direction to Competent Authority to decide petitioner's representation within six weeks in light of Baldev v. State of H.P. (CWP No.2711 of 2017, 22.02.2022); time-bound disposal; representation to be filed within two weeks; decision to be communicated; miscellaneous applications disposed; no adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file a representation within two weeks to the respondents/Competent Authority, which shall decide it within six weeks of receipt, in accordance with law and keeping in view the decision in Baldev (CWP No.2711 of 2017, decided 22.02.2022), and communicate the decision to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.18968 of 2025

¶2

Decided on: 03.12.2025.

¶3

------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ran Singh …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. and others

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate.

¶11

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

¶12

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶13

2. Petitioner seeks applicability of Baldev Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others² , however, it is seen from the record that petitioner has not preferred representation for redressal of his grievances in light of aforesaid decision.

¶14

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶15

the petitioner would be content in case he is permitted to

¶16

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

¶17

2 CWP No.2711 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 22.02.2022

¶18

¶19

file representation to the respondents/Competent Authority for redressal of his grievances and the respondents/Competent Authority is directed to decided the same within a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer.

¶20

4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this petition is disposed by permitting the petitioner to file representation within two weeks, which shall be decided by the respondents/Competent Authority withn six weeks from the date of receipt of the same, in accordnce with law and also keeping in view the aforesaid decision. The decision so arrived at, shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶21

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.

¶22

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶23

December 03, 2025 yogesh

Ran Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ran Singh 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

Santosh Kumari and Anr. Vs the State of Hp and Anr.

Ramesh Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Arun Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Kartar Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ramesh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Multan Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others