Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/19907/2026 on 5 November 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.19907 of 2026
Decided on: 5th November, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ajay Kumar
…..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others
.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudhanshu Sharma, Advocate vice
Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. Petitioner’s grievance is that his representation (Annexure P-3) seeking applicability of State of H.P. and others Versus Om Prakash2 has not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are
1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
2 LPA No.54 of 2013, decided alongwith connected matters on 4.10.2019 High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 03:10:31 :::CIS
2 directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional 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-3) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment 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 November 05, 2026
Judge Mukesh
High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 03:10:31 :::CIS