Disposed¶4

Ravita Chauhan v. the State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Jan 2026CWP/21084/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (CWP No.21084 of 2025, HP High Court, 02.01.2026, Jyotsna Rewal Dua J.) disposed of at threshold without merits examination; time-bound direction (six weeks) to competent authority to decide representation dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law in light of Mohit Sharma, CWP No.1638 of 2024 (decided 29.11.2024); decision to be communicated to petitioner; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide petitioner's representation dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Mohit Sharma judgment, within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner. ¶4

Ravita Chauhan Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶4

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-5), seeking applicability of the Mohit Sharma judgment, in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule.

¶3

Court's answer

Without examining the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law, taking into consideration the judgment in Mohit Sharma (CWP No.1638 of 2024), within a period of six weeks.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The decision arrived at by the respondents/competent authority on the representation shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶4

Key takeaways

The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of along with the writ petition.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Ravita Chauhan v. State of H.P. and another, CWP No.21084 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided 02.01.2026; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge). The petitioner's grievance was that her representation dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-5), seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024, had not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. With the Additional Advocate General not averse to the prayer, and without examining the merits, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Mohit Sharma judgment, within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.21084 of 2025

¶3

Decided on: 02.01.2026

¶4

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ravita Chauhan …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and another

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

¶9

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate.

¶12

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶13

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶14

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional

¶15

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

¶16

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

¶17

3. Petitioner’s grievance is that her representation dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) seeking applicability of

¶18

Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.² has

¶19

not been decided till date by the respondents/competent

¶20

authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶21

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

¶22

2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024

¶23

¶24

the 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.

¶25

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 dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Mohit Sharma² within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶26

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

¶27

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶28

January 02, 2026 yogesh

Ravita Chauhan v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravita Chauhan v. the State of Hp and Another

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

Amar Chand Vs Sanjeev Kumar Sharma

Jeet Ram Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Raj Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Som Raj Vs State of Hp and Others

Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others