Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/12949/2025 of PARUL THAKUR Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 16 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12949 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Parul 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.
2026:HHC:39585 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.12949 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Parul 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. Surinder Saklani, 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.
Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated 26.11.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.11924 of 2025, titled Aarav Potan versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others alongwith other connected matters.
2. Having perused the averments contained in the petition, especially relief clause vis-à-vis judgment dated 26.11.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Aarav Potan case (supra), this 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 2026:HHC:39585 Court finds that case of the petitioner is identical to the aforesaid case decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court. Vide aforesaid judgment, this Court has already dealt with all the points raised in the instant petition and as such, respondents can be directed to decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court.
3. Consequently, in view of the above, the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in case Aarav Potan (supra) are ordered to be made mutatis mutandis applicable in the present case for all intents and purposes. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 16, 2026 (shankar)