High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 03 SHI CK 0684

State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others vs Indra Devi And Another

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 12 March 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Mohan Goel, J · Bipin Chander Negi, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Latter Patent Appeals No. 131 Of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 303 words

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

CMP(M) No.156 of 2025

1.

Heard learned Advocate General for the applicants.

2.

By way of present application, a prayer has been made for condonation of 133 days’ delay in filing the appeal. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

LPA No.131 of 2026

3.

By way of the present appeal, the State has assailed the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in CWP No.8152 of 2025, titled Indra Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 20.05.2025, in terms whereof, the petition filed by the respondent, herein, has been allowed in the following terms:-

“3. Case file shows that the petitioner has not preferred any representation for the redressal of her grievances. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to prefer representation within two weeks, which shall be decided by the respondents/competent authority in accordance with law, keeping in vide decision rendered in Roop Lal within six weeks from the date of receipt of the same. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioner.”

4.

In the light of the fact that directions passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge is only to consider the case of the petitioner keeping in view the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No(s).1007/2024, titled The State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Roop Lal, decided on 18.03.2025, we are of the considered view that the present appeal is misconceived, as all that the Hon’ble Single Judge has done is to issue a mandamus to the respondents to take a call in consonance with the judgment referred therein.

5.

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.