IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15409 of 2026 Decided on: 08.09.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Maya Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General respondents no. 1 to 4. Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, and Mr. Aman Thakur, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. Petitioner’s grievance is that her representation (Annexure P-3), seeking applicability of Sunder Singh Ver-1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2

sus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 , Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and oth-ers3 and Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others4, has 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 counsel for the respondents are not averse to this prayer. 3. 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 in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgments within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 2 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 3 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 4 LPA No.196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023 3 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 8, 2026 Judge R.Atal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15409 of 2026 Decided on: 08.09.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Maya Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General respondents no. 1 to 4. Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, and Mr. Aman Thakur, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. Petitioner’s grievance is that her representation (Annexure P-3), seeking applicability of Sunder Singh Ver-1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2

sus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 , Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and oth-ers3 and Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others4, has 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 counsel for the respondents are not averse to this prayer. 3. 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 in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgments within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 2 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 3 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 4 LPA No.196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023 3 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 8, 2026 Judge R.Atal