Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/16080/2026 of CHARANJI LAL Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 15 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16080 of 2026 Date of Decision: 15.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Charanji Lal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice
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.16080 of 2026
Date of Decision: 15.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Charanji Lal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondents: 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 representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case the present writ petition is directed to be treated as a representation by the competent authority.
2. Having regard to the nature of the order proposed to be passed, this Court does not find any necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise duly represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General.
2
3. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to treat the present writ petition as a representation on behalf of the petitioner and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
September 15, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge