Disposed¶8

Rakesh Chand v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Mar 2026CWP/3396/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rakesh Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others; CWP No. 3396 of 2026; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Judge Ajay Mohan Goel; decided 20.03.2026; disposal of writ petition without comment on merits; direction to competent Authority to decide representation Annexure P-1 within 12 weeks by speaking order in accordance with law; pending miscellaneous applications disposed; advocates: Vaibhav Tanwar (petitioner), Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General (State).

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent Authority to decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-1) in light of the averments made therein within 12 weeks by passing a speaking order in accordance with law; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. ¶8

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 3396 of 2026
Decided on: 20.03.2026
Rakesh Chand …….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents
*Coram*

¶3

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

¶4

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

____________________________ For the petitioner :	_________________________ Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate.
For the respondents :	Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents – State.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge	( Oral)

¶6

Notice. Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶7

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner has already represented to the Department with regard to the issue raised in the writ petition, the interest of justice would be served, in case, this petition is disposed of with direction to the competent authority to decide the representation filed by the petitioner Annexure P-1 in the light of averments made therein within some reasonable time.

¶8

Without making any observation on the merit of the case, this writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction that the representation made by the petitioner, appended with the

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

writ petition as Annexure P-1, shall be decided by the competent Authority, in light of the averments made therein within a period of 12 weeks from today, by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶12

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 20, 2026 ( narender )

Rakesh Chand v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Chand 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

Vinod Manta Vs State of Hp and Another

Pooja Rani and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Shanta Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Vijender Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sunil Pathak Vs the State of Hp and Others

Mamta Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others