IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 11725 of 2026. Decided on : 17th July, 2026. Naresh Chand ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rocky and Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Raj Pal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral). Notice. Mr. Raj Pal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The Court stands informed that the issue raised by the petitioner herein, is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 9321 of 2025, titled Vijay Parmar & Ors. Vs. State of H.P., decided on 06.04.2026. 2. This could not be disputed on behalf of the respondents-Department, though learned Additional Advocate General submitted that any order passed in this petition shall be subject to the right of the State to assail the judgment passed by this Court in Vijay Parmar & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. (supra). Ordered accordingly. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. This petition is thus disposed of with the observation that the directions passed by this Court in Vijay Parmar & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. (supra), shall mutatis mutandis be read to have been passed in this petition also. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 17th July, 2026. (jai)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 11725 of 2026. Decided on : 17th July, 2026. Naresh Chand ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rocky and Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Raj Pal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral). Notice. Mr. Raj Pal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The Court stands informed that the issue raised by the petitioner herein, is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 9321 of 2025, titled Vijay Parmar & Ors. Vs. State of H.P., decided on 06.04.2026. 2. This could not be disputed on behalf of the respondents-Department, though learned Additional Advocate General submitted that any order passed in this petition shall be subject to the right of the State to assail the judgment passed by this Court in Vijay Parmar & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. (supra). Ordered accordingly. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. This petition is thus disposed of with the observation that the directions passed by this Court in Vijay Parmar & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. (supra), shall mutatis mutandis be read to have been passed in this petition also. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 17th July, 2026. (jai)