Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1652/2026 on 13 October 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
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 PRADSH AT SHIMLA
COPC No. 1652 of 2026 Decided on: 13.10.2026 _______________________________________________________________
Milant Dogra and another
....Petitioners Versus
Ashish Kohli
....Respondent
Coram :
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General, for Respondents- State.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court, alleging non-compliance of the order/judgment dated 17.07.2026 [Annexure C-1], passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 11666 of 2026, titled as Milant Dogra and Ors. versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. The Operative part of the order/judgment reads as under: “2 This petition is disposed of with the direction that after the adjudication in Letters Patent Appeal by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, which has been preferred by the State against judgment dated 07.04.2025, passed
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 ( 2026:HHC:45084 )
by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in Inder Singh Thakur and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, the representation of the petitioners be decided by the Authority within eight weeks as from the date of the adjudication of the Hon’ble Division Bench.”
2. Basing reference to the orders dated 17.07.2026, [Annexure C-1], 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. Gautam Sood, Learned Deputy Advocate General 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,
3 ( 2026:HHC:45084 )
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 closed and notice is discharged.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
October 13, 2026 (Anita)