Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1723/2026 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:46829
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No. 1723 of 2026
Date of decision: 27.10.2026. Anju Devi & others
...Petitioners.
Versus
Dr. Amit Kumar Sharma
...Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. R. L. Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge:
Petitioners have invoked contempt jurisdiction of this Court, alleging non-compliance of the judgment dated 30.07.2026 [Annexure C-1], passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in CWP No. 1278 of 2026, titled as Anju Devi & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:- “3. Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.5-Deputy
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
Commissioner, Kullu/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners, in accordance with law and in terms of applicable policy, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned stakeholders, including respondents No.3 and 4, within a period of eight weeks from today. All contentions of the parties are left open. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the parties.”
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have submitted representation on 05.08.2026 [Annexure C-2], requesting the respondent to implement the judgment but neither the personal hearing has been given nor the decision on the representation has been conveyed as yet.
3. Heard.
4. Notice. Mr. Sumit Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent.
5. In aforesaid circumstances and as prayed by Learned Counsel for petitioners, instant petition, is disposed of, with direction to the Respondents-Competent Authority, to comply with the judgment dated 30.07.2026 [Annexure C-1], to afford a personal hearing and to pass a speaking order [if already not passed], within a period of six weeks, from today.
In aforesaid terms, the instant proceedings are closed and notice is discharged.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge October 27, 2026. (kck)