Disposed

Rajeev Kanwar v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Sept 2026CWP/15967/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pending writ petitions seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma judgment were disposed of without examining merits. The High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations in accordance with law, specifically taking the Mohit Sharma judgment into account, within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions given to respondents to decide representations and comply with Mohit Sharma judgment within six weeks.

Rajeev Kanwar Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.15967 of 2026 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 15^thSeptember, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.15967 of 2026
Rajeev Kanwar …..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CWP No.15981 of 2026
Rekha Devi and another …..Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. CWP No.15985 of 2026
Anamika …..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. CWP No.15989 of 2026
Rajesh Kumari …..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶3

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

¶4

¶5

For the Petitioners: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate in CWP No.15967 of 2026.

¶6

Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate, in CWP No.15981 of 2026.

¶7

Mr. Narendra Guleria and Mr. Loveneesh Singh Thakur, Advocates, in CWP No.15985 of 2026.

¶8

Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, in CWP No.15989 of 2026.

¶9

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶10

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their

¶14

representations (annexed with the 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.

¶15

2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024

¶16

¶17

3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but

¶18

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 petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

¶19

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

¶20

Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 15, 2026 Judge Mukesh

Rajeev Kanwar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kanwar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases