Disposed¶21

Umesh Kumar and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Dec 2025CWP/19544/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; CWP No.19544 & 19572 of 2025; decided 12.12.2025; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge; petitioners Umesh Kumar and Ors, Kuldeep Kumar; respondents State of H.P. and Ors; pending representations seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma judgment (CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided 29.11.2024); direction to competent authority to decide representations per law within six weeks and communicate decision; disposal without examining merits.

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 decision to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶21

Umesh Kumar and Others 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.19544 & 19572 of 2025 Decided on: 12.12.2025

¶3

1. CWP No.19544 of 2025 Umesh Kumar and Ors …..Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. CWP No.19572 of 2025 Kuldeep Kumar …..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Petitioners: Mr. M.A.Safee, Advocate

¶12

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Addtional Advocate General. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶13

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

¶14

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on

¶15

behalf of the respondents.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the

¶19

parties, the matters are heard at this stage.

¶20

3. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions, seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.² have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the 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.

¶21

4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the 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.

¶22

2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024

¶23

¶24

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above

¶25

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶26

any.

¶27

December 12, 2025 R.Atal

¶28