Subhash Kaushal Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Subhash Kaushal Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-3) in light of the judgment dated 29.11.2024 in CWP No.1638 of 2024, expeditiously and preferably within four weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and passing appropriate orders; liberty reserved to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved; pending application(s) disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-3) in a time bound manner in light of the Co-ordinate Bench judgment dated 29.11.2024 in CWP No.1638 of 2024.

Court's answer

The Court found the issue raised in the petition already adjudicated by this Court, so that no prejudice would be caused to either party by directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation.

Ratio / Principle

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-3) in light of the aforesaid judgment.

Key takeaways

The respondents were directed to act expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.ratio¶9
While acting on the order, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass appropriate orders on the representation.ratio¶9
Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if he still remained aggrieved; pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, Judge), CWP No.551 of 2026 — Subhash Kaushal v. State of Himachal Pradesh & another (decision 07.01.2026): Before any notice was issued, the petition was disposed of at the petitioner's counsel's request, with directions to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-3) in light of the Co-ordinate Bench judgment dated 29.11.2024 in CWP No.1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others), expeditiously and preferably within four weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and passing appropriate orders; liberty reserved to pursue further proceedings if still aggrieved; pending application(s) disposed of. No impugned order is described; no statute is cited.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.551 of 2026

Date of Decision: 07.01.2026

____________ ___________________________________________ Subhash Kaushal …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Harish Kumar & Rocky, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Before notice, 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 directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner.

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

2

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while appearing on behalf of respondents fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgment supra.

Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 appropriate orders thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

January 07, 2026 (shankar)