IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15061 of 2026 Decided on: 2nd September, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ravinder Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Singh Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with 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. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner’s grievance is that his representation dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P-4) seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2 has 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 2

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 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 dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Mohit Sharma2 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 September 02, 2026 Judge Mukesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15061 of 2026 Decided on: 2nd September, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ravinder Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Singh Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with 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. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner’s grievance is that his representation dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P-4) seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2 has 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 2

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 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 dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Mohit Sharma2 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 September 02, 2026 Judge Mukesh