MADAN LAL(Not Applicable) vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) — CWP/3298/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010107772026

Filing Number

CWP/9139/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

CWP/3298/2026

Registration Date

18-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MADAN LAL(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Mamta Garg

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable)

    Adv. AG 1123

  2. 2.Director of Elementary Education(Not Applicable)

  3. 3.Deputy Director of Elementary Education(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan GoelView PDF

    Summary of CWP No. 3298/2026 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of the writ petition filed by Madan Lal against the State of Himachal Pradesh by directing the Competent Authority to decide the petitioner's representation within eight weeks, considering the averments made therein. The court accepted the petitioner's counsel's submission that the petition be resolved through a time-bound decision on the pending representation already filed with the respondent department. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Notice Before Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/3298/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CWP No. 3298/2026 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of the writ petition filed by Madan Lal against the State of Himachal Pradesh by directing the Competent Authority to decide the petitioner's representation within eight weeks, considering the averments made therein. The court accepted the petitioner's counsel's submission that the petition be resolved through a time-bound decision on the pending representation already filed with the respondent department. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case