Disposed¶19

Kehar Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Nov 2025CWP/8453/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP Himachal Pradesh High Court; eighteen clubbed writ petitions (2023-2024) v. State of Himachal Pradesh; disposed without deciding merits; direction to consider and decide cases within six weeks in light of Manmohan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No. 8987 of 2024 (decided 02.09.2025); opportunity of hearing; speaking order; liberty reserved; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' cases expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Manmohan (supra), after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to the petitioners to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved. ¶19

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should be issued to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' cases in light of the judgment dated 02.09.2025 in CWP No. 8987 of 2024 (Manmohan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh) in a time bound manner.

¶17

Court's answer

Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petitions with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' cases expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Manmohan (supra).

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The authority concerned, while doing the needful, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order.

¶21

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if they still remain aggrieved.ratio¶21
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral), decision dated 19.11.2025 — Eighteen writ petitions (CWP No. 9075 of 2024 led by Mahesh Kumar, with CWP Nos. 7925, 8631, 9223, 9875, 10179, 10509 of 2023 and CWP Nos. 5121, 5911, 6167, 8451, 8453, 8455, 8457, 8459, 8829, 9077 and 9821 of 2024) against the State of Himachal Pradesh involved common questions of law and fact and were clubbed and jointly heard. Counsel for the petitioners stated the cases were squarely covered by the judgment dated 02.09.2025 of this Court in CWP No. 8987 of 2024, Manmohan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, and sought directions for consideration of the petitioners' cases in light thereof; the respondents' counsel was not averse. Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petitions directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' cases expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of Manmohan (supra), after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.9075 of 2024 with CWP Nos.7925, 8631, 9223, 9875, 10179, 10509 of 2023, CWP Nos.5121, 5911, 6167, 8451, 8453, 8455, 8457, 8459, 8829, 9077 and 9821 of 2024

¶3

Date of Decision: 19.11.2025

¶4

____________________________________ 1. CWP No. 9075 of 2024 Mahesh Kumar Versus	___________________ …….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
2. CWP No. 7925 of 2023 Satya Pal Versus	…….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
3. CWP No. 8631 of 2023 Dila Ram Versus	…….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
4. CWP No. 9223 of 2023 Mohan Lal Versus	…….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
5. CWP No. 9875 of 2023 Roop Singh Versus	…….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
6. CWP No. 10179 of 2023 Maan Singh	…….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents

¶5

¶6

7. CWP No. 10509 of 2023 Madan Lal Sharma Versus	…….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
8. CWP No. 5121 of 2024 Shyama Devi Versus	…….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
9. CWP No. 5911 of 2024 Nanak Chand Versus	…….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
10. CWP No. 6167 of 2024 Kashmir Chand Singh Versus	…….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
11. CWP No. 8451 of 2024 Jens Ram Versus	…….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
12. CWP No. 8453 of 2024 Kehar Singh Versus	…….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
13. CWP No. 8455 of 2024 Shamsher Singh Versus	…….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
14. CWP No. 8457 of 2024 Sunil Kumar Versus	…….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & others _____________________________________	… Respondents __________________

¶7

¶8

15. CWP No. 8459 of 2024 Mahender Singh Versus	…….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
________________________________________ 16. CWP No. 8829 of 2024 Bihari Lal Versus	_______________ …….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
17. CWP No. 9077 of 2024 Sant Lal Versus	…….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
18. CWP No. 9821 of 2024 Shiv Ram	…….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	… Respondents
________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹	_______________

¶9

For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶10

Since common questions of law and facts are

¶11

involved in above captioned cases and similar reliefs have been

¶12

prayed for, this Court, after clubbing all the cases together,

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

heard them jointly and are being disposed of vide the common

¶16

judgment.

¶17

Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners’ case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 02.09.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 8987 of 2024, titled Manmohan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and as such, they would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner.

¶18

3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.

¶19

4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petitions with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Manmohan case (supra) . Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order,

¶20

¶21

shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand

¶22

disposed of.

¶23

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶24

November 19,2025

¶25

(shankar)

Kehar Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kehar Singh v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harmesh Chand Vs Hrtc and Others

Roop Lal and Others Vs the Hpsebl and Others

Banita Kumari and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Paramjeet Singh Vs the Hrtc and Others

Satya Pal Vs State of Hp and Others

Tarsem Singh Vs the Hrtc and Others