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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Directions to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations of different dates (Annexure P-3, colly.) in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Mohit Sharma judgment (CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided 29.11.2024), within a period of six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representations (Annexure P-3, colly.), seeking applicability of the Mohit Sharma judgment, in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule.

Court's answer

Without examining the merits of the matter, the Court disposed of all three writ petitions with directions to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations of different dates (Annexure P-3, colly.) in accordance with law and taking into consideration the judgment in Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024), within a period of six weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The decision so arrived at by the respondents/competent authority on the representations shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) — CWP Nos. 20092, 20102 & 20116/2025 (Bhagwant Singh and another; Parkash Chand and others; Lekh Raj and others v. State of H.P. & others), decided 20.12.2025. Petitioners' grievance was that their representations of different dates (Annexure P-3, colly.), seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. v. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No.1638 of 2024 (decided 29.11.2024), had not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. Counsel for the petitioners sought a fixed-time direction; the Additional Advocate General raised no objection. With consent of counsel, all matters were heard together, and, without examining the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petitions directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representations in accordance with law and in the light of the Mohit Sharma judgment within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioners. Entitlement under the Mohit Sharma judgment was left open for determination by the competent authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP Nos.20092, 20102 & 20116/2025 Decided on:20.12.2025.

1. CWP No. 20092/2025

Bhagwant Singh and another …Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. & others .…Respondents.

2. CWP No. 20102/2025

Parkash Chand and others …Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. & others .…Respondents.

3. CWP No. 20116/2025

Lekh Raj and others …Petitioners Versus

State of H.P. & others .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the petitioner: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauha, Deputy Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

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

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

2

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the matters are heard at this stage

3. Petitioners’ grievances are that their representations of different dates (Annexure P-3, colly.) 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.

4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, all these writ petitions are disposed of with directions to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners of different dates (Annexure P-3, colly.) 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.

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

Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 20, 2025 Judge yogesh

2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024