Disposed¶21

Jeet Ram Chauhan v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jan 2026CWP/4746/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; CWP No. 4746 & 4748 of 2025 (Jeet Ram Chauhan and Prem Dutt Sharma v. State of H.P. & Ors.); decided 01.01.2026; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Time-bound direction to competent authority to decide pending representations invoking the Surya Prabha judgment (CWP No. 5390/2024, decided 28.05.2025) within six weeks; no adjudication on merits; relevant for mandamus-style directions where representations remain undecided.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations in accordance with law and taking into consideration the Surya Prabha judgment, within six weeks, and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners. ¶21

Jeet Ram Chauhan 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. 4746 & 4748 of 2025 Decided on: 01.01.2026

¶3

1. CWP No. 4746/2025

¶4

Jeet Ram Chauhan …Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

¶7

2. CWP No. 4748/2025

¶8

Prem Dutt Sharma …Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

¶11

Coram

¶12

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

¶13

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶14

For the petitioners: Mr. Pranav Kaushal, Advocate in both the petitions. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General in both the petitions.

¶15

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

¶16

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate

¶17

General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their respective representation(s) annexed with these writ petitions, seeking applicability of Surya Prabha & Ors. Vs State of H.P. & Ors² . have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the petitioner(s) would be content, in case, respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation(s) of the petitioner(s), in accordance with law, within a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer.

¶21

Having regard to the above submissions , but without examining the merits of the matters, these petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation(s) of the petitioner(s), in accordance with law and as well as taking into consideration the above judgment, within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner(s). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶22

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶23

1^st January 2026(rohit)

¶24

2 CWP No. 5390/2024 decided on 28.05.2025

Jeet Ram Chauhan v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeet Ram Chauhan 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

Kalpna Kumari and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Yudhveer Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ishro Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Komal Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ranver Singh Thakur Vs State of Hp and Another

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.