Himachal Pradesh High Court
CMP.M/1819/2026 on 6 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.
2026:HHC:49228 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMP(M) No. 1819
of 2026
Decided on:
06.11
.2026
State of Himachal Pradesh and others …….applicants/petitioners Versus Rajni Sharma … non-applicant/respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : Notice not issued. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CMP(M) No.
For the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the review petition is condoned. Review Petition No.
Be registered. By way of this review petition, the State is seeking review of judgment dated 09.04.2026, passed by this Court in CWP No.3600 of 2024, titled as Ms. Rajni Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
3. Having heard learned Advocate General and having perused the averments made in the review petition as also the judgment, review of which is being sought, this Court is of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2026 02:57:44 :::CIS
2026:HHC:49228 considered view that no ground is made for review of the judgment in issue. In fact, in para-5 of the judgment, this Court has categorically quoted para-25 of the stand of the State taken in the reply filed to the writ petition, in which, the stand of the State was that the case of the petitioner was indeed covered by the judgment passed in Sant Ram’s case, but as per the State, at the relevant time, State had assailed said judgment passed in Sant Ram’s case, which was pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Though, learned Advocate General submitted that this was an incorrect made in the reply, however, the record as it existed, contained this averment. Therefore, as there is no error, much less apparent, on the face of the record, the review petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge November 06
, 2026
(narender) High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 07/11/2026 02:57:44 :::CIS