[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Sushant Bhardwaj vs State Of H.P. And Another on 9 January, 2026
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.898 of 2026 alongwith
connected matters
Decided on: 9th January, 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
1. CWP No.898 of 2026
Dr. Sushant Bhardwaj .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CWP No.900 of 2026
of
Saurav Sharma .....Petitioner
rt Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. CWP No.908 of 2026
Meenakshi .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. CWP No.910 of 2026
Dr. Harshita Sood .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. CWP No.924 of 2026
Dr. Monika Bhardwaj .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:49:25 :::CIS
2
6. CWP No.932 of 2026
Dr. Shailja Sharma .....Petitioner
Versus
.....Respondents
.
State of H.P. and another
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. CWP No.934 of 2026
Kanika Baghla .....Petitioner
Versus
of
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. CWP No.944 of 2026
Dr. Tanuja Rana rt .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. CWP No.946 of 2026
Dr.Suman Sanjta .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. CWP No.970 of 2026
Radhika Negi .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:49:25 :::CIS
3
11. CWP No.926 of 2026
Dr. Shabnam Katoch .....Petitioner
Versus
.
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting? 1
of
For the Petitioners: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta Advocate General,
for respondent No.1 in all the matters.
rt Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for
respondent No.2 in all the matters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional
Advocate General and Mr. Janesh Mahajan, learned
counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of
respondents No.1 and 2, respectively.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, the matters are heard at this stage.
3. Petitioners' grievance is that their
representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions,
seeking applicability of Ghanshyam Dass and others
Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others 2, have
not been decided till date by the respondents/competent
authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
.
that the petitioners would be content in case the
respondents/ competent authority(s) are directed to
consider and decide the aforesaid representations in
accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned
counsel appearing for the respondents are not averse to
of
this prayer.
4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but
rt
without examining the merits of the matters, these writ
petitions are disposed of with a direction to the
respondents/competent authority to consider and decide
the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in
accordance with law as well as taking into consideration
the above judgment in the case of Ghanshyam Dass2
within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so
arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.
The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
January 09, 2026 Judge
R.Atal
CWP No.2056 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matters on 21.03.2024
