Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1718/2026 on 27 October 2026
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:46831
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
COPC No. 1718 of 2026
Date of decision: 27.10.2026. Rajnish Kumar Chaudhary
...Petitioner.
Versus
Rakesh Kanwar & another
...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Rocky, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge:
Petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court, alleging non-compliance of the order/judgment dated 22.06.2026 [Annexure C-1], passed in CWP No. 9428 of 2026, titled as Rajnish Kumar Chaudhary versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby a Coordinate Bench of this Court, passed the following orders:- “2. As prayed for, this petition is disposed of with the direction that representation (Annexure P-3) filed by the petitioner be decided by the Competent Authority within a period of twelve weeks from today in terms of the contents therein.”
2. Basing reference to the orders dated 22.06.2026, [Annexure C-1], Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 16:28:14 :::CIS
the Respondents have neither decided the representation nor any speaking order has been conveyed to the petitioner as yet.
3. Heard.
4. Notice. Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
5. As prayed by Learned Counsel for petitioner and considering the matter in above perspective, this Court disposes of the instant petition, with direction to Respondents/Competent Authority to decide the representation [Annexure P-3 in the said Writ Petition] within a period of six weeks from today [if not already decided].
6. Needless to say, that in case, the representation has already been decided, the decision on the representation/ speaking order be conveyed to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.
7. In aforesaid terms, the instant proceedings are closed and notice is discharged.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge October, 27, 2026. (kck)
High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 16:28:14 :::CIS