1. Representations seeking applicability of a judgment not decided by competent authority. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 4991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
Ravinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
CWP No.17718 of 2026|CWP No.17722 of 2026|CWPC No.17811 of 2026
Important Points
The court directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representations in accordance with the law and a specific precedent within six weeks.
Subject
Civil - Writ Petition
Headnote
(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Disposal of Petitions - Direction to decide representations - Where petitioners seek the benefit of a previous judgment, the court may direct the competent authority to consider and decide the representations in accordance with law within a specified timeframe. (Para 3)
Issues: Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the representations of the petitioners in light of a previous judgment.
Issues: Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the representations of the petitioners in light of a previous judgment.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vaibhav Tanwar
For the Respondents: Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Seema Sharma
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vaibhav Tanwar
For the Respondents: Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Seema Sharma
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners sought direction to decide representations; State counsel not opposed to the prayer. (Para 2 )
3. Court disposed of petitions without examining merits, directing consideration of representations. (Para 3 )
4. Court may direct expeditious consideration of pending representations without adjudicating merits. (Para 3 )
5. Writ petitions disposed of directing consideration of representations within six weeks and communication of decision. (Para 3 )
6. Can a court direct disposal of a representation without examining the merits of the main claim?
Yes, the court may direct the competent authority to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law within a fixed time, without examining merits. (Para 3 )
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notPice on behalf of the respondents.
Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations (annexed with the respect ive writ petitions) seeking applicability of Mohit Soharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 have n ot been decided till date by the respondents/competent tauthority. Learned counsel for the petitioners subumitted that the petitioners would be content in casoe the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed-time hschedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not gaverse to this prayer.
Having regard to the afore-submissions, but Hwithout examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners 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 petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in theP above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous applicat.ion(s), if any.
