The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of four connected writ petitions. The court directed the respondents to decide the petitioners' representations regarding the applicability of a specific judicial precedent within six weeks without examining the merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
| CWP No.15967 of 2026 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 15thSeptember, 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 |
1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
2
For the Petitioners: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate in CWP No.15967 of 2026.
Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate, in CWP No.15981 of 2026.
Mr. Narendra Guleria and Mr. Loveneesh Singh Thakur, Advocates, in CWP No.15985 of 2026.
Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, in CWP No.15989 of 2026.
For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their
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.
2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024
3
3. 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 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.
The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 15, 2026 Judge Mukesh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners' requests for applying the principle laid down in Mohit Sharma are to be decided.
Whether a direction should be issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representations within a fixed time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.Referred
Rajeev Kanwar
Rekha Devi
Anamika
Rajesh Kumari
State of H.P.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
