Disposed¶7

Udham Singh Chandel v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Mar 2026CWP/3059/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: CWP No. 3059 of 2026; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Udham Singh Chandel; State of Himachal Pradesh; representation to competent Authority; direct approach to High Court; alternate forum / competent authority route; decision within 12 weeks; speaking order; disposal with direction; pending miscellaneous applications disposed; oral judgment; Ajay Mohan Goel; 16.03.2026. Use-case: petitions directed to be routed through the competent Authority with a fixed decision timeline and a requirement of a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction: representation to competent Authority within 4 weeks; Authority to decide it in accordance with law within 12 weeks thereafter by a speaking order; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of accordingly. ¶7

Udham Singh Chandel 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, having regard to the petitioner's direct approach to the Court without first approaching the competent Authority, the writ petition should be disposed of with a direction that any representation filed by the petitioner be decided by the competent Authority in accordance with law.

¶7

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that if the petitioner files a representation regarding the issue raised in the writ petition before the competent Authority, the representation shall be judicially considered.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Any such representation is to be decided in accordance with law within twelve weeks of filing, taking into account the averments made therein and any judgments relied upon by the petitioner, by way of a speaking order.

¶7

Key takeaways

Pending miscellaneous applications in the writ petition, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (CWP No. 3059 of 2026, decided 16.03.2026; Ajay Mohan Goel, J.; oral judgment) — Sh. Udham Singh Chandel v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Observing that the petitioner had approached the Court directly without firstly approaching the competent Authority, the Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that if the petitioner files a representation regarding the issue raised in the writ petition before the competent Authority within 4 weeks, the Authority shall decide it in accordance with law within 12 weeks thereafter, in view of the averments made therein and any judgments relied upon by the petitioner, by passing a speaking order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. The substantive grievance of the petitioner and any impugned decision are not described in the judgment text.

¶1

2026:HHC:7250

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 3059 of 2026 Decided on: 16.03.2026 Sh. Udham Singh Chandel … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram

¶4

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

____________________________ For the petitioner :	_________________________ Ms. Oshin Anand Chauhan, Advocate as Proxy Counsel.
For the respondents :	Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General for respondents-
	State.
:	Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 5.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge	( Oral)

¶7

As the petitioner has approached the Court directly without firstly approaching the competent Authority, as prayed for, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event of the petitioner filing a representation with regard to the issue raised in the writ petition to the competent Authority within a period of 4 weeks from today, let the same be decided in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks thereafter, in view of the averments made therein as well as judgments, if any, being relied upon by the petitioner, by passing a speaking order. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶8

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 16, 2026 ( narender )

¶9

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

Udham Singh Chandel v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udham Singh Chandel 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ghanshyam Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vinod Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Subhash Chand and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Nisha Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Shiv Ram Vs State of Hp and Others