Disposed

Joginder v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jan 2026CWP/20879/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court disposed of the public interest litigation without adjudicating merits, directing respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and decide expeditiously within six weeks, ensuring an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider and decide petitioner's representation in light of Hem Raj judgment expeditiously within six weeks.

Joginder 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.20879 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.01.2026

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Joginder ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent:Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.
__________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J .(Oral)_

¶4

Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2171 of 2023, titled as Hem Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. alongwith connected matters, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Hem Raj ( supra ) as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

¶5

¶6

While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously.

¶7

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of his grievances (Annexure P-3) , this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Hem Raj (supra) , expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶8

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶9

January 01, 2026 (sunil)

Joginder v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder 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

Sunil Kumar Vs the Hrtc and Another

Kanhiya Lal Vs Hp State Forest Corporation and Another

Saurabh Dhiman Vs the Jogindra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Another

Hem Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sunil Chand Vs the State of Hp and Another

Jyoti Vs the State of Hp and Others