Sher Singh v. State of H.P & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 10 Sep 2025
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Confronted with above, learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with…
Judgment
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, 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.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.
Petitioner seeks applicability of Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 and Smt. Kanta Devi Versus State of H.P. & Ors.3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 3 CWPOA No.6929 of 2020, decided on 27.05.2024 2 jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redressal of his grievances raised in the writ petition.
Operative part
Confronted with above, learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed 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. September 10, 2025 Mukesh Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition stands disposed of in the above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 10 Sep 2025.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.