Disposed¶9

Gurpal Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Jan 2026CWP/379/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gurpal Singh; State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.; representation Annexure P-1; Madan Lal Sharma; CWP No.3341 of 2019; consider and decide representation; six weeks; opportunity of being heard; speaking order; disposed without merits; Sandeep Sharma; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; 06.01.2026; Raj Thakur; Rajan Kahol.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-1) in light of Madan Lal Sharma (CWP No.3341 of 2019), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording an opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order; pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶9

Gurpal Singh 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.379 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.01.2026

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Gurpal Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate 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, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his representation is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.3341 of 2019, titled as Madan Lal

¶5

Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

¶6

While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously.

¶7

¶8

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without

¶9

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 (Annexure P-1) in light of Madan Lal Sharma (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.

¶10

January 06, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge

Gurpal Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpal Singh 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 State of Hp and Others

Rama Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kalu Ram Vs State

Seema Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Parveen Pathania and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Manish Kumar Arya Vs Hpsebl and Others