Himachal Pradesh High Court

COPC/1643/2026 on 13 October 2026

Cites 1, Cited by 0

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

1

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…

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADSH AT SHIMLA

COPC No. 1643 of 2026 Decided on: 13.10.2026 _______________________________________________________________

Rajesh Thakur

....Petitioner Versus

The Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another.

....Respondents

Coram :

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner : Mr. Bhanu Verma, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court, alleging non-compliance of the order/judgment dated 01.07.2026 [Annexure P-1], passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 10185 of 2026, titled as Rajesh Thakur versus The Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another. The Operative part of the order/judgment reads as under: “2. As prayed for, this petition is disposed of with the direction that representation [Annexure P-2] filed by the petitioner be decided by the Competent Authority within twelve weeks’ from today in terms of the content therein.”

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

( 2026:HHC:45458 )

2. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that Respondents have neither decided the representation nor any speaking order has been conveyed to the petitioner as yet.

3. Heard.

4. Notice. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Learned Counsel waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

5. At this stage, Learned Counsel submits that petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, the Respondent- Competent Authority decides the representation of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. [Statement taken on record]

6. Considering the matter in above perspective, this Court directs the Respondent/Competent Authority to decide the representation, in terms of the order/judgment, within six weeks positively.

7. Needless to say, that in case, the order/judgment is not complied with in terms of this order, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy, hereinafter, in accordance with law.

8. In aforesaid terms, the instant proceedings are

( 2026:HHC:45458 )

closed and notice is discharged.

(Ranjan Sharma)

Judge

October 13, 2026 (Anita)

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead