Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/17500/2025 on 14 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 17500 of 2025
Date of Decision: 14.10.2026 ______________________________________________________________ Gokul Chand & Ors.
……...Petitioners
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar 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)
Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that despite repeated complaints/reminders, no action is being taken against the revenue officials who attested the mutation dehors the rules. He states that though after receipt of the complaint, competent authority got the matter examined and thereafter forwarded the same to the concerned quarter for taking appropriate action, but fact remains that till date, no action has been taken. He further states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to respondent No. 2, i.e. Deputy High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:09:03 :::CIS
2 Commissioner, Shimla, to take appropriate action on communications dated 04.02.2025, 10.02.2025 and 30.04.2025 in a time-bound manner.
2. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though by now he has every reason to presume and believe that necessary action must have been taken, but, if the same has not been taken, appropriate action shall be taken expeditiously.
3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to respondent No. 2 to ensure that communications dated 04.02.2025, 10.02.2025 and 30.04.2025 are taken to their logical end expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly.
4. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other stakeholders and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
October 14, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (sunil)
Judge High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:09:03 :::CIS