Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1520/2026 on 9 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
COPC No.1520 of 2026
Date of decision:09.10.2026
Shivam Pathania & another
...Petitioners
Versus Hemraj Bairwa
...Respondent
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate, (through V.C.) and Ms.Pallvi Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General
Romesh Verma, Judge (oral):
The instant petition has been filed alleging non- compliance of the directions as passed by this Court in CWP No. 5678 of 2026 dated 22.04.2026, whereby this Court had passed the following order:
“Only grievance of the petitioners urged by their learned counsel is that they preferred a representation through e-mail on 30.03.2026 (Annexure P-6), requesting construction of a retaining wall around Khata No. 28, Mohal Rait, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra. The said representation, addressed to respondent No. 2 as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, has not been decided till date.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied in case the competent authority/Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, is Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a time-bound manner. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to this prayer.
3. Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, the instant petition is disposed of by directing the competent authority/Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners, in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to all concerned stakeholders, within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the parties. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
2. On 01.10.2026, this Court had directed the respondents to comply with the aforesaid directions positively within one week,
3. Today, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the copy of office order dated 07.10.2026, whereby, after considering the case of the present petitioners, the same has been decided. Though it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he is not satisfied with the order and the grievances of the petitioners have not been taken into consideration, however, the fact remains that this Court had passed the order to decide the representation which was filed by the petitioners.
4. Faced with this situation, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he may be permitted to assail the order dated 07.10.2026 before the competent court of law.
5. Consequently, in view of the compliance as made by the respondents, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present petition.
6. The petition stands disposed of, with liberty as prayed for.
(Romesh Verma)
Judge 9th October, 2026.
(vt)