PARKASH CHAND v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Himachal Pradesh judgment dated 2025-10-30. PARKASH CHAND v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
( 2025:HHC:36267 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16922 of 2025 th Decided on: 30 October, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parkash Chand ….. Petitioner Versus State of H. P. and others ..... Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L. N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L. N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3.
Petitioner’s grievance is that his representation (Annexure P-6) seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & 2 Anr. Versus State of H. P. & Ors. has not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. CWP No. 1638 of 2024, decided on 29. 11. 2024 ( 2025:HHC:36267 ) 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 Additional 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 petitioner (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the 2 above judgment in the case of Mohit Sharma 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 30, 2025 Judge yogesh
Source: High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.