Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/15547/2026 of RAJ KUMARI Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 9 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15547 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Raj Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … 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.15547 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Raj Kumari
…….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Ms. Shabnam, Advocate vice Mr. Naveen K.
Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents-State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to competent authority to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-7 colly) filed by the petitioner, in a time bound manner.
2. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he 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
3. 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 respondent No.3 to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-7 colly) filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from today. 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 appropriate orders. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 09, 2026 (Sunil)