Disposed¶4

Ramesh Chand Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jan 2026CWP/20858/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP 20858/2025 HP High Court Shimla; Ramesh Chand Sharma v State of HP; representation dated 11.11.2025 Annexure P-3; applicability of Yashwant Kumar CWP 8148 of 2022 decided 21.03.2024; direction to competent authority to decide representation in accordance with law within six weeks; decision to be communicated; disposed without examining merits; Jyotsna Rewal Dua; 01.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a time-bound direction (six weeks) to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation dated 11.11.2025 in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Yashwant Kumar judgment, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶4

Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.20858 of 2025 Decided on: 01.01.2026

¶3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ramesh Chand Sharma …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents

¶6

Coram

¶7

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the Petitioners: Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶10

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the

¶14

parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

¶15

3. Petitioner’s grievance is that his representation

¶16

dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure P-3), seeking applicability of

¶17

Yashwant Kumar Vs. State of HP and Ors² has not been

¶18

decided till date by the respondents/competent authority.

¶19

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

¶20

2 CWP No. 8148 of 2022, decided alongwith connected matters on 21.03.2024

¶21

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶23

petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

¶24

4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Yashwant Kumar² within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶25

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

¶26

Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 1, 2026 Judge R.Atal

Ramesh Chand Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chand Sharma v. the 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalpna Kumari and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Yudhveer Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ishro Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Komal Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Jeet Ram Chauhan Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ranver Singh Thakur Vs State of Hp and Another