Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1317/2026 of BANITA Vs M.SUDHA DEVI AND OTHERS on 16 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1317 of 2026 Date of decision:16.09.2026 Banita ...Petitioner Versus Sudha Devi & others ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate. For
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
COPC No.1317 of 2026
Date of decision:16.09.2026
Banita
...Petitioner
Versus Sudha Devi & others
...Respondent
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Addl. A.G., for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Jitender Sharma, Advocate, vice counsel, for respondent No.3.
Romesh Verma, Judge (oral):
The instant petition has been filed alleging non- compliance of the judgment passed in CWP No. 5226 of 2026, dated 24.04.2026.
2. It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner is seeking parity on the basis of the judgment passed by this court in CWP No. 2056 of 2023, titled as Ghanshyam Dass vs. State of H.P. & others. However, in LPA No. 295 of 2026, titled as State of H.P. vs. Ghanshyam Das, the impugned Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-2-
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has been stayed by the Division Bench of this court on 17.08.2026.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, for the time being, the present petition can be disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to revive the instant petition in case the grievance of the petitioner still remains unredressed after the decision in the LPA.
4. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with liberty as prayed for, along with pending application(s), if any.
(Romesh Verma)
Judge 16th September, 2026
(vt)