Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1636/2026 of AKSHAY KUMAR Vs C.PAULRASU on 9 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 1636 of 2026 Decided on: 09.10.2026 ________________________________________________ Akshay Kumar ....Petitioner Versus C. Palrasu …Respondent _ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1 ( 2026:HHC:44326 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No. 1636 of 2026
Decided on: 09.10.2026 ________________________________________________ Akshay Kumar ....Petitioner Versus
C. Palrasu …Respondent _
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge (oral) Notice. Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
2. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record copy of order dated 18.09.2026, passed by Division Bench of this Court, which reads as under:- “Mr. C. Paulrasu, IAS, Secretary (Horticulture) and Mr. Dhruv Shaunak, ADA/L.O. (Horticulture), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh are present. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 ( 2026:HHC:44326 ) Counsel for the parties agreed that the matter was taken up with the Apex Court against the order dated 11.09.2026 and an interim order has been passed in favour of the State. Resultantly, we defer proceedings for 06.11.2026. Officers need not to come present on the said date.”
3. Therefore, in this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this contempt petition at this stage.
4. Consequently, the present contempt petition is dismissed, as not pressed, at this stage.
5. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to revive the present contempt petition, if occasion arises to do so. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
( Sushil Kukreja )
9th October, 2026 Judge (raman)