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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without entering the merits; respondents directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-5) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording him an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order taking note of the Mohit Sharma judgment; liberty reserved to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-5) should be considered and decided by the competent authority in a time-bound manner in light of the coordinate bench judgment in Mohit Sharma, without adjudicating the merits in the present petition.

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-5) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.

Key takeaways

The authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a detailed speaking order taking note of the coordinate bench judgment in Mohit Sharma case, wherein the issue sought to be decided here already stands adjudicated.ratio¶10
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if he still remains aggrieved.ratio¶10
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Sandeep Sharma, J.), oral order dated 05.01.2026 in CWP No.21167 of 2025 (Kulwinder v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others): before notices issued, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, confined the prayer to a direction that the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-5) be considered and decided by the competent authority in light of the coordinate bench judgment in CWP No.1638 of 2024, Mohit Sharma and Another v. State of H.P. and Others. Additional Advocate General did not object. Disposing of the petition without going into the merits, the Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, by a detailed speaking order taking note of the Mohit Sharma judgment, wherein the underlying issue already stands adjudicated. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies if still aggrieved; pending applications disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.21167 of 2025

Date of Decision: 05.01.2026

_______________________________________________________ Kulwinder …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar and Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation (Annexure P-5) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Others, in a time bound manner.

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2

petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment

Consequently, in view of the above, 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 pending representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohit Sharma case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

January 05, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)