Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/17390/2026 of VIJAY MALAM AND ANOTHER Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 1 October 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17390 of 2026 Date of Decision: 01.10.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Vijay Malam Joshi and Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.17390 of 2026
Date of Decision: 01.10.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Vijay Malam Joshi and Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Raj Kumar and Mr. Aman Hansretta, Advocates.
For the Respondenst: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. __________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide their pending representation (Annexure P-2) in a time bound manner.
2. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for a reply on behalf of the respondents, who are represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General.
2
3. Careful perusal of the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties reveals that on account of the construction of the road i.e. Purthi to Thandal road, the privately owned Gharat i.e. water mill of the petitioners came to be damaged. Though repeatedly, petitioners requested the authorities to compensate them for the damage and provide an alternative site, but since needful was not done, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
4. Consequently, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority while doing the needful shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass an appropriate order.
In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.
October 01, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge