Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/17179/2026 of JAGTAMBA MATA SUDHAR SABHA THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 30 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17179 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Jagatamba Mata Sudhar Sabha …….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.17179 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Jagatamba Mata Sudhar Sabha
…….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. T.K.Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent- State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case complaint dated 26.08.2026(Annexure P-1 colly), is ordered to be decided by the competent authority in a time bound manner.
2. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 Additional Advocate General fairly states that complaint, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously.
3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same, with a direction to respondents No. 2 to 4 to decide the complaint dated 26.08.2026(Annexure P-1 colly) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other stakeholders. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 30, 2026 (shankar)