Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/16664/2026 of UDAY RAM Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 28 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16664 of 2026 Date of Decision: 28.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Uday Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents
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.16664 of 2026 Date of Decision: 28.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Uday Ram
…….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. Mohan Sharma, Advocate(through video conferencing).
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent- State.
Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case the present petition is considered to be a representation by the department concerned with further direction to the respondents to decide the same in a time bound manner. Learned counsel representing the respondents is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
2. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the present petition as representation and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks. 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 appropriate order. Till the time representation is not decided in terms of instant order, no other property shall be hired for setting up the milk chilling plant. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 28, 2026 (shankar)