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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondents directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order in terms of the Mohit Sharma judgment; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the competent authority should consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) in light of the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohit Sharma v. State of H.P. (CWP No.1638 of 2024), the issue having already been adjudicated therein.

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a detailed speaking order taking note of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Mohit Sharma case (supra), wherein the issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if he still remains aggrieved.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (CWP No.93 of 2026, decided 05.01.2026) — Sunil Kumar v. State of H.P. & Others — disposed of at the threshold without adjudicating merits. Counsel for the petitioner stated, on instructions, that the client would be content if his pending representation (Annexure P-3) were considered and decided by the competent authority in a time bound manner in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Mohit Sharma v. State of H.P., CWP No.1638 of 2024; the Additional Advocate General raised no objection. Sandeep Sharma, J. directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order taking note of the Mohit Sharma judgment, wherein the issue sought to be raised already stands adjudicated. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek further remedies if still aggrieved; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.93 of 2026

Date of Decision: 05.01.2026

_______________________________________________________ Sunil Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Before notices, 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 his pending representation (Annexure P-3) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Others, in a time bound manner.

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the

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

2

petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without 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 pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohit Sharma case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

January 05, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)