Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1408/2026 on 4 November 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.
1 ( 2026:HHC:48712 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No. 1408 of 2026
Decided on: 04.11.2026 ________________________________________________ Subhash Chand & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus
Ashish Kumar Kohli …Respondent _
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge (oral) Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 04.11.2026, wherein, it has been stated that there were four petitioners in the writ petition and one more petitioner Smt. Anita Devi had also submitted her representation on 12.06.2026, which has been decided by the Office of Deputy Director of School Education, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide order dated 19.08.2026. Petitioner No. 1, Subhash Chand was informed 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 03:13:22 :::CIS
2 ( 2026:HHC:48712 ) telephonically as well as request letter was also sent to him on 14.10.2026 & 30.10.2026, but he has not submitted the representation till date.
2. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that petitioner No. 1, Subhash Chand has submitted his representation through Deputy Director of School Education, Kangra at Dharamshala. Therefore, the respondent is also directed to decide the representation of petitioner No. 1, Subhash Chand within a period of two weeks from today.
3. Hence, in this view of the matter, no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt petition and the same is closed and disposed of.
4. However, in case the petitioners are still aggrieved, they are at liberty to avail appropriate remedy, as available to them, under the law. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
( Sushil Kukreja )
4th November, 2026 Judge (raman) High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 03:13:22 :::CIS