Disposed¶22

Pariyojna Prabhavit Kalyan Samiti Shakha Firlioale v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC19 May 2026CWP/7797/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, CWP 7797 of 2026, decided 19.05.2026 by Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner Pariyojna Prabhavit Kalyan Samiti Shakha Firlioale sought direction to Competent Authority (respondent No.2) to decide representation dated 18.12.2025 seeking rehabilitation of adversely affected people from project of respondent No.4 and compensation/relief to project affected families. Petition disposed of with eight-week direction; no decision on merits; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2/Competent Authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2025 (Annexure P-9) in accordance with law within eight weeks and to communicate the decision to the petitioner; merits not examined. ¶22

Pariyojna Prabhavit Kalyan Samiti Shakha Firlioale 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.7797 of 2026

¶3

Decided on: 19.05.2026

¶4

Pariyojna Prabhavit Kalyan Samiti Shakha Firlioale

¶5

…..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of H.P. and Ors

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Coram

¶10

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶12

For the Petitioner: Mr. T.K.Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶13

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶14

Notice is confined to respondents No.1 to 3,

¶15

which is waived by Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶16

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had preferred a representation to respondent No.2 on 18.12.2025 (Annexure P-9) seeking rehabilitation of adversely affected people from the project constructed by

¶17

respondent No.4 and also seeking grant of

¶18

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶19

¶20

compensation/relief to the projected affected families. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid representation has still not been considered by the Competent Authority. He further submitted that petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.2/Competent Authority is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

¶21

3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/ Competent Authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶22

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶23

Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 19, 2026 Judge R.Atal

Pariyojna Prabhavit Kalyan Samiti Shakha Firlioale v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pariyojna Prabhavit Kalyan Samiti Shakha Firlioale 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

Amarjeet Kaur Vs State of Hp and Others

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Pooja Devi and Another Vs Abhishek Jain and Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs Abhishek Jain and Another

Sunidhi Chauhan Vs the State of Hp and Others

Raksha Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others