Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/13538/2026 of RANGRA BUS SERVICE Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 9 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 13538 of 2026 Date of Decision: October 9, 2026 Rangra Bus Service …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
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.
2026:HHC:44361 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 13538 of 2026 Date of Decision: October 9, 2026 Rangra Bus Service
…….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Raywant Kaushish, Ms. Megha Sharma and Mr. Parvesh Chandel, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Ad-vocates General, for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and 6. Nemo for respondent No. 5. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions state that grievance of the petitioner stands partially redressed, as such, his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending complaint, Annexure P-2 is decided by the competent authority, in a time bound manner.
2. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and 6, who are otherwise represented by the office of learned Advocate General or issue notice to respondent No.5, as such, same is dispensed with.
3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that the complaint, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously.
4. Consequently, in view of the above, this court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the writ petition, with a direction 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 2026:HHC:44361 to respondent No.3 to decide the pending complaint, Annexure P-2, filed by the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from today. ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing needful in terms of this order, shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other stake-holders and passed a speaking order thereupon. In view of above, petition is disposed of. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 9, 2026 (vikrant)