Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/15932/2026 of MUKUL KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 14 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15932 of 2026 Date of Decision: 14.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Dr. Mukul Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice
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.15932 of 2026
Date of Decision: 14.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Dr. Mukul Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. __________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Precisely the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate, is that though inquiry proceedings are pending against the petitioner for his having allegedly possessed large quantity of stents while he was serving as Head of the Cardiology Department at RPGMC Tanda and allegations are yet to be proved in accordance with law, but respondents No. 4 and 5 are making incorrect statements to the media, as a result thereof, great prejudice is being caused to the image of the petitioner.
2
2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents who are otherwise represented by learned Advocate General.
3. Since it is apparent from the pleadings as well as other material placed on record that inquiry is pending against the petitioner for his having allegedly stored cardiac hardware unauthorizely, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to the respondents to not make any public disclosure with respect to the inquiry, so that inquiry is concluded fairly without there being any bias. Ordered accordingly.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
September 14, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge