Disposed¶7

Jyoti v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jan 2026CWP/20893/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed of time bound on consent of State counsel without merits adjudication; respondents to decide petitioner's representation in light of Hem Raj, CWP No.2171 of 2023 (28.05.2024), within six weeks; opportunity of being heard and speaking order mandated; pending applications disposed; single judge (Sandeep Sharma, J.); no statutes cited.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-3) in light of the judgment in Hem Raj (supra), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, with an opportunity of being heard and a speaking order; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶7

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are to be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Hem Raj (CWP No.2171 of 2023, dated 28.05.2024) within a time bound manner.

¶4

Court's answer

In view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that the petitioner had already filed a representation for redressal of her grievances (Annexure P-3), the Court disposed of the present petition without going into the merits.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in light of the judgment in Hem Raj (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

¶7

Key takeaways

While doing the needful in terms of the instant order, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order thereafter.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla – CWP No.20893 of 2025, decided 01.01.2026 (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral). Petitioner Smt. Jyoti submitted that the issue raised in her proceedings had already been adjudicated by a Coordinate Bench in CWP No.2171 of 2023, Hem Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (judgment dated 28.05.2024, with connected matters), and sought directions that the respondents consider her representation (Annexure P-3) in light of that judgment in a time bound manner. On appearance, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly stated that any representation filed by the petitioner would be considered and decided expeditiously. Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation in light of the Hem Raj judgment expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, requiring the competent authority to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and to pass a speaking order; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.20893 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.01.2026

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Smt. Jyoti ……...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 her 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)

Jyoti v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti 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

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

Joginder Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sunil Chand Vs the State of Hp and Another