Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1037/2026 of SUREKHA DEVI Vs AMARJEET K SHARMA on 11 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 1037 of 2026 Date of Decision: 11.09.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Surekha Devi ……...Petitioner Versus Dr. Amarjeet K Sharma …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep
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. 1037 of 2026
Date of Decision: 11.09.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Surekha Devi
……...Petitioner Versus Dr. Amarjeet K Sharma
…....Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shagun Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
While placing on record communication dated 11.09.2026, issued under the signatures of Principal, Government College Dhaliara, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith copy of office order dated September 2026, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated stands duly complied with.
2. Having carefully perused aforesaid documents, which are taken on record, this Court finds that respondents, after having considered the case of the petitioner in light of Narender Kumar’s case, has rejected the same and as such, no action of them can be said to be contumacious.
3. Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is closed.
2
Notice issued to the respondents are discharged. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, laying therein challenge to order passed in purported compliance of the judgment alleged to have been violated.
September 11, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil)
Judge