Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/18950/2026 on 26 October 2026
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.18950 of 2026
Decided on: 26th October, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chet Ram Sharma and others
…..Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others
.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Parkash Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this writ petition be treated to have been filed only on behalf of petitioners No.1 to 3 and 5 to 13. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner No.4 be reserved liberty to seek appropriate remedy by filing separate writ petition for the redressal of his grievances raised in this writ petition. Prayer is accepted.
Accordingly, this writ petition shall be treated to have been filed to the extent prayed for. Petitioner No.4
1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
shall be at liberty to file separate writ petition for the redressal of his grievances outlined in this writ petition in accordance with law.
2. Notice. Mr. Sikander Bhushan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representation (Annexure P-7) seeking applicability of Surya Prabha and others Versus State of H.P. and others2 has not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners 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.
4. 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 petitioners (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration
2 CWP No.5390 of 2024, decided on 28.05.2025
the above judgment within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.
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