Disposed

Madan Mohan Verma v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Sept 2026CWP/15987/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge treated writ petition as filed by three petitioners only; accepted prayer to dismiss others' cross claims. Disposed petition allowing petitioners to make representation for redressal within two weeks with decision within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition treated as filed by Petitioners 1, 4, 5; liberty granted to others for separate petition. Petitioners to file representation within two weeks for authority decision within six weeks.

Madan Mohan Verma Vs the State of Hp and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.15987 of 2026

¶3

Decided on: 15^th September, 2026

¶4

Madan Mohan Verma and others …..Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶8

Coram

¶9

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Petitioners: Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶12

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶14

this writ petition be treated to have been filed only on behalf of petitioners No.1, 4 and 5. Learned counsel further submits that the remaining petitioners be reserved liberty to seek appropriate remedy by filing separate writ petition(s)

¶15

for the redressal of their grievances raised in this writ petition. Prayer is accepted.

¶16

Accordingly, this writ petition shall be treated to

¶17

have been filed to the extent prayed for. Remaining petitioners shall be at liberty to file separate writ petition(s)

¶18

for the redressal of their grievances in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

2. Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional

¶22

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

¶23

3. Petitioners seek applicability of Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.² . It is, however, seen from the record that the petitioners have not preferred any representation for the redressal of their grievances raised in the writ petition.

¶24

4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be preferring a representation(s) within two weeks from today. In case such a representation(s) is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

¶25

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

¶26

September 15, 2026 Mukesh

¶27

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶28

2 CWP No.4830 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matter on 07.04.2025

Madan Mohan Verma v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Mohan Verma 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases