Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/7592/2026 of VINOD KUMAR THAKUR Vs STATE OF HP on 1 October 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7592 of 2026 Date of Decision: 01.10.2026 _______________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar Thakur …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.7592 of 2026 Date of Decision: 01.10.2026 _______________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar Thakur
…….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
While placing on record communication dated 30.09.2026, issued under the signatures of Executive Engineer, Dharampur Division, HPPWD Dharampur, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith receipts issued by the Treasury, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that relief, as prayed for in the instant petition, stands granted and as such, present petition has been rendered infructuous.
2. Having carefully perused aforesaid communication alongwith documents, which are taken on record, this Court finds that sum of Rs.68, 39, 805/- has been paid to the petitioner qua various 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 bills submitted by him. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner states that still sum of Rs.7, 62, 439/- remains to be paid, but having taken note of the fact that substantial amount already stands released, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly same is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach competent authority for disbursal of remaining amount, if any, in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge October 01,2026 (shankar)