Disposed

Babita Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2026CWP/16246/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions by directing the State of Himachal Pradesh and its competent authorities to consider and decide the petitioners' representations seeking the applicability of a prior judgment (Mohit Sharma & Anr. v. State of H.P. & Ors.) within six weeks, and communicate the decision to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide petitioners' representations in accordance with law and the judgment in Mohit Sharma & Anr. v. State of H.P. & Ors. within six weeks and communicate the decision.

Babita Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.16246 of 2026 alongwith CWP No.16278 of 2026 Decided on: 18^th September, 2026

¶3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. CWP No.16246 of 2026 Babita Devi …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. CWP No.16278 of 2026 Santosh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus

¶5

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

¶6

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate in CWP No.16246 of 2026. Mr. Verender Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate, in CWP No.16278 of 2026. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶10

Notice. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy

¶11

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

¶12

2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations (annexed with the respective 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 Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

¶13

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.

¶14

2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024

¶15

¶16

The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to

¶17

the petitioners.

¶18

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above

¶19

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶20

any.

¶21

September 18, 2026 Mukesh

¶22

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Babita Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babita Devi 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