Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRWP/76/2026 of SURAT RAM Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 25 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.WP No. 76 of 2026 Date of decision: 25.09.2026 Surat Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H. P. & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether
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:41174 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.WP No. 76 of 2026 Date of decision: 25.09.2026 Surat Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H. P. & Ors.
…Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Dr. Rishi Pal Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. G. S. Sandhawalia
, Chief Justice (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondents No. 2 to 4 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and to restrain respondents No. 5 to 9 from harassing or interfering in the peaceful life of the petitioner.
2. Apparently, the petitioner has been approaching the official-respondents for the redressal of his grievances and one such representation dated 29.04.2026 has been attached as Annexure P-1.
3. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that rather than call for the reply as such,
2 2026:HHC:41174 it would be appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to respondents No. 3 and 4 to look into the said representation and to take action, if so required, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
4. Needless to say that we have not commented upon the merits of the case in any manner and the said official-respondents take an independent call and decide the said representation. In case, it is necessary, the petitioner and private respondents No. 5 to 8 can be given an opportunity of hearing by the concerned official for disposing of the said representation.
5. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also pending applications, if any.
(G. S. Sandhawalia)
Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) 25th September, 2026
Judge (sanjeev)