Himachal Pradesh High Court

CWP/18593/2026 on 26 October 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.18593 of 2026

Decided on: 26th October, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Krishan Lal

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others

.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Sikander Bhushan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. Petitioner’s grievance is that his representation (Annexure P-4) seeking applicability of State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Versus Sheela Devi2 and Jagdish Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others3 has not been decided till date by the respondents/ competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner

1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

2 SLP (Civil) No.10399/2020, decided on 07.08.2023

3 CWP No.2411/2019, decided alongwith connected matters on 10.01.2020 High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 16:34:41 :::CIS

2 submitted that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgments within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 26, 2026

Judge Mukesh High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 16:34:41 :::CIS

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead