LiveLaw Himachal Pradesh High Court Half Yearly Digest: January To June, 2026
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (HP)84Nominal Index:Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi (Kamand), H.P. Versus Central Public Works Department & another., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 01Satish Kumar v/s Gurdial Singh.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 02Indu Sharma v/s State of H.P. and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 03Bhag Chand v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP)04Himachal...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (HP)84
Nominal Index:
Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi (Kamand), H.P. Versus Central Public Works Department & another., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 01
Satish Kumar v/s Gurdial Singh.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 02
Indu Sharma v/s State of H.P. and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 03
Bhag Chand v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP)04
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd & another vs HCL Infotech Ltd.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 05
Jatinder Singh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Shimla & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 06
Paramjeet Singh v/s State of H.P.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 07
Astha Thakur v/s Dhananjay Kanwar.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 08
M/s RK Products through its proprietor Smt. Kusum Mahajan V/s The Chairman Himachal Pradesh.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 09
Abhishek v/s State of H.P..,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 10
Veena Devi v/s State of H.P. and Another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 11
State of H.P. V/s Vinod Kumar @Ghungaru.,2026LiveLaw (HP)12
Soma Devi & others v/s Union of India and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP)13
Salochna Devi v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 14
Sandesh Kumar Deceased through his LRs v/s National Highway Authority of India and another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 15
Ratnoo Ram v/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP)16
Shivalik Containers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner & Anr.,2026 LiveLaw (HP)17
Sh. Joginder Singh v/s State of H.P. and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 18
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr. V/s Jaimal Singh.,2026 LiveLaw (HP)19
Beverley Singh v/s Tejinder Singh & Another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 20
Mohan Lal Goel & others v/s Prabha Bhagra & others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 21
Bal Krishnan & others v/s State of H.P. and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 22
Dikken Kumar Thakur & Anr. v/s The State of Himachal Pradesh and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 23
Ram Lal Sharma v/s State of H.P. and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 24
Meenki Devi, Ram Pal & Anr. V/s State of H.P.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 25
Chaman Lal v/s State of H.P. through its Secretary (Panchayati Raj) and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 26
Sanjeev Kumar v/s State of H.P. and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 27M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 28
Bir Singh v/s Tirath Raj & another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 29
Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi (Kamand), H.P. v/s Central Public Works Department & another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 30
Sh.Satpal and others v/s State of H.P. and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 31
Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited v/s State of H.P. and another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 32
Nikhil v/s M/s Shourya industries and another, 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 33
Pali Diwan v/s Central Bureau of Investigations.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 34
Yug Raj Thakur and Ors. v/s Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited and Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 35
Himanshu Dilip Kulkarni v. State of HP & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 36
Ankush Thakur v. State of HP & Ors,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 37
Pawan Basant Borle v/s Union of India & others, 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 38
Diwakar Dev Sharma v/s Railway Police Force and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 39
M/s Zenith-Event & Services and another v. State of HP and others., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 40
Sandeep Kumar v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and others., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 41
Tara Devi v/s State of H.P. & others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 42
Pankaj Chauhan & others v/s State of H.P. & Other.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 43
Kishori Lal v/s Surender Kumar.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 44
State of H.P. v/s Dhruv Dev.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 45
The State of HP and Ors v. Greta Devi.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 46
Lagnesh Verma v/s State of H.P. & others .,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 47
Nehru Yuva Club of Village Manlog-Badog & Anr.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 48
Arvind Verma V/s Dhian Singh.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 49
Sohan Lal (Deceased) through LRs. v. HP Electricity Board and Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 50
Thakar Singh Bharmouri V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 51
M/s Tiloksons Brewery & Distillery, Kala Amb District Sirmour, H.P. V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 52
Kaushalya Devi V/s Suini (since deceased through her LRs).,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 53
Hari Ram (deceased) through LRs v/s State of HP and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 54
Suneel Kumar V/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 55
Case Title: Jatinpreet Singh V/s Pooja Devi & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 56
Vikesh Zinta & others V/s State of H.P. & others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 57
Court on its own motion vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 58
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Bhupinder Singh Mehta & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 59
Shiv Dayal & Anr. V/s Kanshi Ram & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 60
State of Himachal Pradesh V/s Gaurav Sharma.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 61
Ravi Chand V/s State of H.P. & others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 62
Basant Lal V/s State of H.P. & others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 63
Vikrant Bomsra V/s State of H.P. & others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 64
Umavati V/s HPSEB & others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 65
Umang Vohra V/s Union of India.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 66
Khem Singh V/s Dila Ram.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 67
Vijay Kumar V/s State of H.P. & others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 68
Court on its own motion V/s State of H.P. & others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 69
Ravinder and others V/s Varinder and others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 70
Dalel Singh V/s State of H.P.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 71
Reena Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 72
Joint Teachers Front of Himachal Pradesh V/s State of H.P. & Others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 73
Rahul Dadhwal & others V/s State of H.P. & Others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 74
Surinder Sharma V/s Parveen Kalia & another.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 75
Salochna Devi Vs. H.P.S.E.B.L., 2026, Live Law (HP) 76
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 77
Pramod Kumar and Another V/s Hir Chand, 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 78
Manik Kumar V/s State of H.P., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 79
Vandana Kumari V/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 80
State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Daleep Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 81
Registrar Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College vs. Padam Kumar,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 82
Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.,,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 83
Rajesh Kakkar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 84
Case Title: Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi (Kamand), H.P. Versus Central Public Works Department & another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 01
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition holding that mere financial or consequential interest was insufficient to implead a non-signatory in the arbitration proceedings unless the stringent tests as laid down by the Supreme Court which include participation in the negotiation, performance or termination of contract were satisfied.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed: “Merely because the petitioner had a substantial interest in the subject matter of the contract, the same was not a ground to implead it as a party in the arbitration proceedings going on between the parties before the learned Arbitrator. This Court holds that the petitioner had no direct or indirect role to play in the execution of the contract between CPWD and the Contractor.”
Case Name: Satish Kumar v/s Gurdial Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 02
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition filed by Satish Kumar, refusing to interfere with the Trial Court's order which denied extension of time for depositing deficient court fee in a decree for specific performance.
The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish bona fide reasons or absence of negligence and therefore did not deserve discretionary relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that:“ Along-with the application, no document has been appended or was appended to demonstrate that indeed the petitioner had gone for a pilgrimage of two months… and that after coming back, he suffered viral infection, cough and fever… these bald assertions made in the application, are not supported by any document on record.”
Employee Who Forgoes Earlier Promotion Can't Claim Reconsideration Within One Year: HP High Court
Case Name: Indu Sharma v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 03
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Indu Sharma, a retired Junior Assistant, challenging the placement and promotion of her juniors to the post of Senior Assistant in the Department of Language and Culture.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “If an employee was promoted to a higher post and such an employee refuse or foregoes his promotion then, the said employee is not to be considered for promotion again for a period of one year from the date of refusal of first promotion or till a next vacancy arises, whichever is later.”
Case Name: Bhag Chand v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 04
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that abolition of the work-charged establishment in 2005 could not nullify a right that had already accrued in favour of the employee in 2003.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Once a right for work charge status had accrued to the petitioner on completion of 8 years of continuous service w.e.f. 01.01.2003… the abolition of work charge establishment in August, 2005 cannot be permitted to a ground to deprive and deny benefit which accrue/flow to the petitioner.”
Case Title: Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd & another vs HCL Infotech Ltd
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 05
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently clarified that statutory interest and penalty arising from delayed payment of entry tax cannot be shifted onto a contractor when the delay was caused by the employer's own failure to act in time, and where the arbitral tribunal had consciously restricted the contractor's scope of liability.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel in an order dated December 29, 2025, dismissed a challenged filed by Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd (HPSEBL) under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, seeking to set aside an award passed in favour of HCL Infotech.
Case Title: Jatinder Singh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Shimla & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 06
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has stayed reassessment proceedings initiated against an assessee under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, noting that the validity of such notices is already under consideration before the Supreme Court.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma passed the order while hearing a writ petition which had challenged a reassessment notice issued for Assessment Year 2017-18, on the ground that it was without jurisdiction.
Case Name: Paramjeet Singh v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 07
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the conviction of an accused in a fatal road accident case, holding that when pedestrians and cattle are moving on the road, the driver is required to slow down and drive with caution; failure to do so constitutes negligence.
The Court further remarked that the accused failed to reduce speed despite cattle movement on the road and drove the vehicle in a manner that resulted in the death of a child.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “Therefore, a driver was supposed to drive the vehicle carefully so as to avoid any injury to any person or animal… In the present case, the accused failed to slow down the vehicle when the cattle and people were moving on the road and this would constitute negligence.”
Case Name: Astha Thakur v/s Dhananjay Kanwar
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 08
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a Family Court does not lose jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to stridhan, gifts, and other matrimonial property merely because a decree of divorce has already been passed.
Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma remarked that: “… it is apparent that irrespective of any provision in any other law including the Hindu Marriage Act, the Family Court has a jurisdiction to adjudicate a suit and proceedings related to property dispute related to property of the parties or of either of them…”
Case Name: M/s RK Products through its proprietor Smt. Kusum Mahajan V/s The Chairman Himachal Pradesh
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 09
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council functions within the statutory framework of the MSMED Act, 2006 and cannot equate itself with a civil court.
The Court further clarified that the Facilitation Council has no authority to invoke or exercise powers vested in civil courts under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “By no stretch of imagination, the Council constituted under the 2006 Act is comparable to a Civil Court at all. It is just a statutory Council which has to perform the duties which have been encompassed upon it under the provisions of the 2006 Act and it cannot enshrine upon itself the powers which are conferred upon a Civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
Case Name: Abhishek v/s State of H.P.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 10
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted regular bail to a petitioner accused under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court held that mere criticism of war, expression of dissent, or advocacy of peace on social media, without incitement to violence or public disorder, does not amount to sedition.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that:“Prima facie, they show that the petitioner chatted with someone, and both of them criticised the hostilities between India and Pakistan. They advocated that all people, irrespective of their religion, should stay together, and that the war serves no fruitful purpose.It is difficult to see how a desire to end the hostilities and a return to peace can amount to sedition.”
Case Name: Veena Devi v/s State of H.P. and Another
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 11
The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed held that once the petitioner acquires the requisite qualification and the policy continued to operate, absorbtion cannot be denied.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that:“Once it is not in dispute that communication dated 06.03.2017 has not been withdrawn till date and pursuant to afore communication, number of similarly situate persons have been absorbed, there appears to be no justification to deny the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner…
Case Name: State of H.P. V/s Vinod Kumar @Ghungaru
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 12
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the State's appeal, which challenged the acquittal of an accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act (unlawfully possess any intoxicant (like liquor or drugs) or materials/apparatus for making them).
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “S.I. Balak Ram (PW-7) admitted in his cross-examination that bottles were half-filled and empty. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the police had recovered filled bottles. There is no explanation for producing the half-filled and empty bottles before the Court.. therefore, there is reasonable doubt regarding the identification of the case property in the Court.”
Case Name: Soma Devi & others v/s Union of India and others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 13
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a temporary employee of the Postal Department, who had rendered more than two decades of continuous service after the grant of temporary status, could not be denied pensionary benefits merely because a formal order of regularisation was not issued before his retirement.
The Court remarked that Union of India could not take advantage of their own inaction in not issuing a formal regularisation order, and the denial of pension was contrary to the settled law and applicable rules.
Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Inaction of the respondents… in exploiting the petitioner by treating him as 'temporary employee' despite having rendered whole time service for more than 20-23 years continuously, is calculated design and an exploitative methodology to deny the petitioner of the accrued right for pensionary benefits.”
Case Name: Salochna Devi v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 14
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition, holding that when ad-hoc promotion is clearly beyond the 15% quota and therefore not in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules no consequential service benefits can be given.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Once the adhoc promotion given to the petitioner was beyond or in excess of 15% quota… therefore, the adhoc promotion granted 'not as per the Rules' will neither confer any right nor a legally enforceable claim for benefit of service rendered dehors the Rules for service benefits.”
Case Name: Sandesh Kumar Deceased through his LRs v/s National Highway Authority of India and another
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 15
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the National Highway Authority of India could not be permitted to raise the plea of delay and laches to defeat continuation of arbitral proceedings when extensions had already been granted and proceedings concluded in the cases of other similarly placed landowners.
The court remarked that, having participated in the proceedings for almost nine years, NHAI could not invoke delay, particularly when the object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is to ensure effective resolution of disputes.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that:“Respondents-NHAI cannot be permitted to take the plea of delay and laches when, in cases of other similarly placed landowners extension was given by this Court and proceedings were concluded…”
Case Name: Ratnoo Ram v/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 16
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can't deny compensation to the father of the deceased on the ground that he was not financially dependent on his son.
Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj Remarked that: “The findings recorded by the Tribunal below to the effect that the appellant being father of the deceased is not entitled for compensation as legal representative under the head of loss of dependency are wrong and illegal. Even if the father was not dependent upon the deceased… he is entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased and thus, the compensation has to be assessed on the basis of the income of the deceased.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes ₹16.72 Lakh GST Input Tax Credit Demand After Tax Is Paid
Case Title: Shivalik Containers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner & Anr.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 17
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a tax demand of Rs 16.72 lakh raised against Shivalik Containers Pvt. Ltd. for the alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The court held that the subsequent payment of tax along with interest by the supplier cannot be ignored while examining the sustainability of a demand raised against the recipient, even if such compliance takes place after a delay of more than five years.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by the company. The petition challenged a show cause notice and the consequential order dated 4 January 2023. The order had been issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Case Name: Sh. Joginder Singh v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 18
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that there is a distinction between an association formed by employees or volunteers to collectively raise their grievances and a society capable of registration under the Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2006.
The Court remarked that while such groups are often described as “societies,” they do not automatically qualify as societies under the Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2006.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “There is a difference between a group of employees in a Department or volunteers serving in an organization, intending to form an Association… and the registration of a Society under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2006.”
Arbitration Clause Cannot Be Invoked Once Loan Contract Is Exhausted: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr. V/s Jaimal Singh
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 19
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a civil suit seeking damages for harassment and mental agony on account of non-issuance of a No Objection Certificate could not be linked to the original loan agreement once the loan was fully repaid.
The Court remarked that the loan contract had been exhausted upon complete repayment of the loan amount, and therefore, the subsequent claim for damages could not be governed by the arbitration clause contained in the loan agreement.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The suit filed for damages obviously has nothing to do with the contract initially entered into between the petitioners and the respondent–plaintiff, because the same stood exhausted once the loan amount was repaid by the plaintiff.”
Case Name: Beverley Singh v/s Tejinder Singh & Another
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 20
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the mere name of a person in the revenue record does not confer ownership or create any enforceable right in respect of immovable property.
The Court further remarked that revenue entries are maintained for fiscal purposes and cannot be treated as proof of title.
Justice Virender Singh remarked that: “Merely name of defendant No.1 appeared in the revenue record is of no value as the revenue record is not the proof of title.”
Case Name: Mohan Lal Goel & others v/s Prabha Bhagra & others.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 21
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that upon the death of the original tenant, the right to succeed to the tenancy under the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act is strictly governed by the statutory order of succession.
The Court remarked that since the wife was alive and residing with her husband at the time of his death, she alone became the lawful successor to the tenancy and, as per Explanation-II to Section 2(j) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, the right did not devolve upon any other legal heirs after her death.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur remarked that: “Jawala Devi was alive and living with her husband upto the date of his death and therefore, she was only entitled for succession of tenancy… As per Explanation-II, right of every successor… shall be personal to him and on the death of said successor tenancy will not devolve upon his any legal heirs.”
Case Name: Bal Krishnan & others v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 22
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the Election Commission cannot act unilaterally when elections are deferred under the powers exercised by the State Government under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
Thus, the Court quashed the final notification constituting Nagar Panchayat Swarghat and directed reconsideration of objections raised by affected residents through a reasoned and lawful process.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma remarked that: “A tug of war is going on between the State Election Commission and the Government… The State Election Commission cannot thrust upon its decision by issuing notification dated 17.11.2025, when elections have been deferred in exercise of powers under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.”
Elections To Panchayati Raj Institutions Can't Be Deferred Beyond Five-Year Term: HP High Court
Case Name: Dikken Kumar Thakur & Anr. v/s The State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 23
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that statutory orders issued under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 can't override the authority of the State Election Commission or justify postponement of elections.
The Court remarked that elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions must be completed before the expiry of their five-year term, according to Article 243E of the Constitution.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma remarked that: “All limbs of the system involved in governance should act harmoniously… instead of deciding unilaterally causing tug-of-war between them, hampering the interest of larger public and violation of Constitutional mandate.”
Case Name: Ram Lal Sharma v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 24
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has stayed the State Government's decision to shift the office of the H.P. State Commission for Backward Classes from Shimla to Dharamshala, holding that the decision required closer examination in light of administrative and financial implications.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawlia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj while hearing a public interest litigation, passed an interim order.
Case Name: Meenki Devi, Ram Pal & Anr. V/s State of H.P.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 25
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside the conviction of a husband, his mother, and his brother for offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that general, vague and non-specific allegations of dowry harassment are insufficient to establish cruelty or abetment of suicide.
The Court further remarked that prosecution in matrimonial disputes must be based on clear particulars, acts, and proof of mens rea, failing which continuation of conviction would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.”
Case Name: Chaman Lal v/s State of H.P. through its Secretary (Panchayati Raj) and others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 26
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that siting criteria for poultry farms apply independently of the number of birds being reared, and that no poultry farm—small or large can be permitted to operate within 500 metres of a residential area.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Therefore, a poultry farm of whatever size obviously has to be 500 metres away from the residential area so that there is no danger whatsoever either of foul smell or of any kind on account of such like poultry farms.”
Case Name: Sanjeev Kumar v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 27
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an ex-serviceman's vested right to have his entire approved military service counted for the purpose of pay fixation cannot be defeated merely because he joined civil service after an amendment to the applicable rules came into force.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Rightful claim of the petitioner for counting of entire military service rendered by him prior to his civil employment… cannot be permitted to be defeated on the ground that since he joined after 29.01.2018…”
Case Name: M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 28
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a provisional assessment for unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, cannot be made without conducting a site inspection or inspecting the records maintained by the consumer.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel rejected the Board's argument that its own records could form the basis of assessment under Section 126 and clarified that: "A provisional assessment order cannot be issued on the basis of the record maintained by the Board. It has to be on the basis of records maintained by any person and this 'any person' by no stretch of imagination can be the Board".
Case Name: Bir Singh v/s Tirath Raj & another
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 29
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a co-sharer cannot ordinarily be restrained from raising construction on joint land merely because the property remained undivided, provided the construction does not amount to ouster or cause detriment to the other co-owners
A bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: "A co-owner is not entitled to an injunction restraining another co-owner…merely because he is a co-owner unless any act of the person in possession of the property amounts to ouster prejudicial or adverse to the interest of the co-owner out of possession".
Case Name: Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi (Kamand), H.P. v/s Central Public Works Department & another
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 30
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that merely because a party has a substantial financial interest in the subject matter of the contract, that alone cannot be a ground for impleading it as a party in the arbitration proceedings between the parties before the learned Arbitrator.
With these observations, a Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel dismissed a writ petition filed by IIT Mandi and upheld the Arbitral Tribunal's order, which refused to implead the Institute in a dispute between the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) and a private contractor, M/s Supreme Infrastructure India Limited.
Case Name: Sh.Satpal and others v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 31
The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently disposed of a writ petition after the State Transport Authority (STA) issued new instructions relaxing the condition requiring an auto-rickshaw owner to personally drive the vehicle as a prerequisite for the grant of a permit.
The relaxation was made after the High Court observed that the rigid restriction was unreasonable and arbitrary, as it failed to account for several real-life situations in which the owner might be unable to drive the vehicle due to circumstances beyond their control.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, in the interim orders leading up to the final disposal, had remarked thus:
"This Court is of the considered view that imposition of condition that the owner of the Auto Rickshaw shall have to drive the same, itself appears to be arbitrary. This is for the reason that there can be more than one eventuality which may lead to a situation, whereas the owner of the Auto Rickshaw may not be in a position to drive the vehicle himself."
Case Name: Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited v/s State of H.P. and another
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 32
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an order of blacklisting and directed the refund of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) to Intas Pharmaceuticals, holding that once the bid validity period has expired, the State cannot penalise a bidder for refusing to extend the bid validity.
The Court further held that a three-year debarment has serious civil and adverse consequences and cannot be imposed without prior issuance of a show-cause notice.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked:
"Once Clause 2 specifically provides that each bid shall be valid for a period of 180 days… the action on the part of the respondents to forfeit the amount is unjust and arbitrary".
Case Name: Nikhil v/s M/s Shourya industries and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 33
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition challenging an order allowing amendment of a plaint to correct an erroneous khasra number, holding that such a limited amendment does not alter the cause of action or change the nature of the suit.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “the amendment allowed, being limited and restricted to the change in the number of khasra of the property only, cannot be said to have either altered the cause of action or changed the nature of the suit, because whatever the defendants have to say qua the contents of the plaint, they can always do so through the written statement.”
Case Name: Pali Diwan v/s Central Bureau of Investigations
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 34
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the Special Judge holding that the power to obtain handwriting and signatures is an investigative power and not exclusively dependent on Section 311-A CrPC.
The Court clarified that treating Section 311-A of CrPC as the sole source of power to obtain specimen signatures and handwriting would unnecessarily curtail the investigative authority of the police.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “To say that Section 311 A, Cr. PC. is the only repository of the power to obtain signatures and handwriting from the accused during investigation would amount to denuding a power that always existed with the police.“Hence, it is difficult to agree with the submission that the CBI had no jurisdiction to take the specimen signatures.”
Case Name: Yug Raj Thakur and Ors. v/s Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 35
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the regularisation policy of Fixed Tenure Appointees in Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited, holding that appointments made through a transparent and competitive process could not be characterised as “backdoor entries” merely because they were initially for a fixed term.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Romesh Verma: “For rigors adopted in the process for appointment of Fixed Tenure, similar to the rigors and criteria applicable for regular appointment, the appointment of Fixed Term Appointees at initial stage, cannot be termed as a back door entry and, therefore, regularization of such appointment cannot be termed as an act, defeating the provisions prescribed for regular appointment.”
Case Name: Himanshu Dilip Kulkarni v. State of HP & Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 36
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has declined to entertain a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking production and custody of his minor daughter, holding that in custody disputes between parents, the appropriate remedy lies before the competent Guardian Court.
While dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking production and custody of his minor daughter, Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi clarified that once the specific whereabouts of the minor are known, the appropriate court having jurisdiction over that place can be approached for relief.
Case Title: Ankush Thakur v. State of HP & Ors,
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 37
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed a preventive detention order passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, holding that the detaining authority failed to independently apply its mind and merely reproduced the proposal submitted by the police.
Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi said, "we are of the considered opinion that the case has been made out for quashing the detention order on account of non-application of mind. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the detention order dated 06.12.2025 (Anexure P1) is quashed. The petitioner be set free, if not required in any other case."
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 38
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to final order of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority cannot be stalled merely because the project land subsequently vested in the State Government under separate revenue proceedings.
The Court further clarified that once a RERA order granting monetary relief attained finality, authorities were bound to enforce it through the statutory recovery mechanisms available under revenue law.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua remarked that: “Merely on the ground that land with respect to which the petitioner had claimed redressal of his grievance before RERA has now been ordered to be vested in the State Government, the recovery proceedings for implementing the final order passed by RERA… cannot be put on hold/stopped.”
Case Title: Diwakar Dev Sharma v/s Railway Police Force and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 39
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Section 153 of the Railways Act, 1989 (endangering the safety of persons travelling by railway by wilful act or omission).
The Court held that the record did not disclose any unlawful or wilful act by the petitioner that could be said to have endangered the safety of railway passengers.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “There is nothing on record to suggest that on account of erection of the electric pole alongside the railway line, safety of any person traveling in the railway or upon any railway line was endangered.”
Case Title: M/s Zenith-Event & Services and another v. State of HP and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 40
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has set aside an order forfeiting over ₹15 lakh from a contractor's security deposit related to the Kullu Dussehra festival, holding that the action was taken in violation of the principles of natural justice as the contractor was never issued a show-cause notice.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G. S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj allowed the petition filed by M/s Zenith-Event & Services and another and directed the authorities to refund ₹15,67,597 that had been deducted from the contractor's security deposit.
Case Title: Sandeep Kumar v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 41
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of a Junior appointed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., holding that the employer was justified in terminating the services of a candidate who had secured employment based on a matriculation certificate issued by an unrecognised board.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “As the petitioner had obtained the job on the strength of a matriculation certificate… obtained from a Board which was not recognized by the competent Authority, the termination of the service of the petitioner cannot be held to be bad.”
Case Title: Tara Devi v/s State of H.P. & others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 42
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an employee's right to be considered for promotion is a legitimate expectation which can't be taken away merely because another employee is transferred to the post on the grounds of marriage.
The Court further clarified that administrative transfers should not be used in a manner that defeats an employee's legitimate expectation of career advancement.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi remarked that: “The right of consideration for promotion is a legitimate expectation of an employee which could not have been taken away on account of a transfer order, only on a ground of marriage and is not mandatory but only recommndatory.”
Completing Class 8 After Age 14 Not Illegal Under RTE Act: HP High Court
Case Title: Pankaj Chauhan & others v/s State of H.P. & Other.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 43
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of a Part-Time Multi Task Worker, clarifying that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ensures free education for children aged six to fourteen but does not prohibit a person above that age from continuing schooling.
The Court further noted that the certificate had been verified by the concerned authorities and there was no reason to doubt its authenticity.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel clarified that: “The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 has been enacted to provide for free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years… However, a close perusal of the provisions of this Act demonstrates that there is no statutory bar that a person above the age of fourteen years is not to be admitted to any School… in Class 8th.”
Case Title: Kishori Lal v/s Surender Kumar
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 44
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an application seeking condonation of a 130-day delay, holding that the applicant can't rely on the plea that his father did not inform him about the hearing date after receiving the court summons.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “When the law requires that the summons be left with the adult male member of the family, it is as good as leaving the summons with the applicant, and the plea that the applicant was not told about the date of the hearing by his father will not help him.”
Case Title: State of H.P. v/s Dhruv Dev
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 45
The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside the acquittal of an accused in a road accident case, holding that the Trial Court had ignored material evidence and failed to apply the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989.
The Court remarked that the accused's act of overtaking another vehicle in unsafe conditions and moving onto the wrong side of the road was the direct cause of the accident and failed to exercise the caution required while overtaking and endangered oncoming traffic.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “The Trial Court ignored the evidence on record and failed to notice the Rules of Road Regulation. The accused overtook the car and hit the motorcycle coming from the opposite side; therefore, he had breached Rule 6 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, which was the proximate cause of the accident”.
Case Title:The State of HP and Ors v. Greta Devi
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 46
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a State's right to file a reply cannot be curtailed by adjudicatory bodies, setting aside a Tribunal order that granted service benefits without affording the State an opportunity to respond.
Emphasising principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, the Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi ruled that such a course adopted by the Tribunal was unsustainable in law, particularly where the claim itself appeared to be barred by limitation.
Appeal Against Interlocutory Order Framing Charge Not Maintainable Under SC/ST Act: HP High Court
Case Title: Lagnesh Verma v/s State of H.P. & others
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 47
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that an appeal against an order framing charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not maintainable, as the order is an interlocutory order and does not determine the final rights of the parties.
Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj observed that: “...the order framing of the charges is purely an interlocutory order as it does not terminate the proceedings but the trial goes on until it culminates in acquittal or conviction.”
Case Title:Nehru Yuva Club of Village Manlog-Badog & Anr.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 48
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that Panchayati Raj institutions must reflect ground realities and can't be structured through abstract administrative decisions. It emphasised that factors such as contiguity, distance, personal relations, and local convenience are central to delimitation, ensuring that grassroots governance remains responsive to local needs.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “For constitution of Panchayats and delimitation of Wards and Panchayat areas, factors such as personal relations, contiguity, distance and convenience are very much relevant.”
Case Title: Arvind Verma V/s Dhian Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 49
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the question of cheque dishonour cannot be conclusively determined merely based on a return memo. It remarked that such a document, without being duly established through evidence, can't form the sole basis for deciding disputed issues at the stage of quashing, and the matter must instead be examined during trial.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Whether the cheque was returned on account of 'insufficient funds' or freezing of account is a matter of trial… and cannot be decided merely on the basis of one return memo… authenticity of which is yet to be established by cogent evidence.”
Co-Owner Cannot Be Denied Enhanced Compensation Granted To Other Co-Owners Under Same Acquisition: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Sohan Lal (Deceased) through LRs. v. HP Electricity Board and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 50
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a co-owner whose land has been acquired is entitled to the same compensation as another co-owner, even if the former did not independently seek a reference under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court observed that once fair compensation is judicially determined for land acquired under the same notification, denying the same to similarly placed co-owners on technical grounds would amount to discrimination.
A division bench comprising Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi was hearing a writ petition seeking parity in compensation for land acquired in 1988 for the Ghanvi Hydel Power Project, where a jointly owned land was acquired and compensation awarded in 1991.
Case Title: Thakar Singh Bharmouri V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 51
The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed an FIR registered against a Congress leader for allegedly making abusive remarks against the Prime Minister during an election rally.
The Court held that the allegations, did not show that the impugned remarks were made to promote enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens on grounds such as religion, caste, or community under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “...there is no allegation that while using absurd language and hurling abuses at the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, petitioner ever attempted to promote enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language...”
Case Title: M/s Tiloksons Brewery & Distillery, Kala Amb District Sirmour, H.P. V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 52
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a cancellation order, holding that the inspection team which conducted the inspection of the brewery was not in accordance with the framework under the Excise Act.
Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua remarked that: “The team constituted by the respondents for inspecting petitioner's premises did not have Executive Magistrate of First Class. Apparently, this team did not even have Police Officer of the rank specified in the Excise Act & the Notification. The inspection report… does not give names of specific Police Officers or their ranks… It has to be held that constitution of the team that inspected the premises was not in consonance with the Act & the applicable Notification.”
Case Title:Kaushalya Devi V/s Suini (since deceased through her LRs)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 53
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that even though the agreement to sell was duly executed and proved, it could not be specifically enforced as it violated a statutory prohibition under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.
The Court noted that the suit land was subject to a ten-year restriction on transfer from the date of conferment of proprietary rights, and since the agreement was executed within this prohibited period, it was rendered legally unenforceable.
Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “Copy of jamabandi, Ex. PW-1/B, demonstrates that proprietary rights… were conferred upon the defendant… as there is a note… that the suit land cannot be alienated for a period of 10 (ten) years upto 2016 in any manner, whatsoever… Since, the agreement has been executed… within a period of two years… the said agreement… being forbidden by law cannot be said to be capable of being specifically enforced.”
Case title: Hari Ram (deceased) through LRs v/s State of HP and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 54
The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld an order rejecting a man's writ petition to be declared the sole hereditary pujari/priest of a temple to the exclusion of the co-priests noting that such a claim cannot be decided in a writ jurisdiction and can only be decided by a civil court.
A division bench of Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi noted that the appellant's father (writ petitioner before single judge) cannot now lay claim to being the Mohtamin (manager) as it was clearly barred by the law of limitation.
Case Title: Suneel Kumar V/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 55
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has granted regular bail to an accused under the POCSO Act, taking note of the admitted marital relationship between the accused and the minor girl and the fact that a child had been born out of the union.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked:“...this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial, because in that event, ultimate sufferer would be victim-prosecutrix, who would otherwise be left alone to raise her minor child.”
Case Title: Jatinpreet Singh V/s Pooja Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 56
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that mere allegations of a subsisting prior marriage, in the absence of any legally valid proof, cannot disentitle a woman from seeking relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Once marriage inter-se petitioner and respondent No.1 is admitted and no legal/valid document with regard to subsistence of earlier marriage of respondent-wife ever came to be placed on record, learned Sessions Judge rightly proceeded to allow the complaint…”
Case Title: Vikesh Zinta & others V/s State of H.P. & others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 57
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the State's decision to empower Deputy Commissioners to alter up to 5% of the reservation roster went beyond the framework prescribed under Article 243D of the Constitution and Section 125 of the Panchayati Raj Act.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma held that: “The criteria on the basis of which alteration to the extent of 5% has been provided by conferring power on Deputy Commissioner is beyond the scope of Article 243D of Constitution of India and Section 125 of Panchayati Raj Act…”
Case Title: Court on its own motion vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 58
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that unscientific de-silting leading to the discharge of excessive silt into river systems and harm to aquatic life warrants the imposition of environmental compensation. The Court observed that economic considerations of power generation cannot override environmental protection and preservation of marine life.
A division bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi was hearing a Public Interest Litigation initiated on the basis of a letter highlighting the discharge of silt from the Barot Dam affecting water quality and trout population in the Uhl river.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Bhupinder Singh Mehta & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 59
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the regularization of contractual computer operators, holding that repeated extensions of service over a long period create a legitimate expectation of regularization, especially when the employees perform perennial and essential functions.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi was hearing an appeal filed by the State against the order of a Single Judge directing regularization of the respondents, who had been working as computer operators since 2004 under a Society implementing catchment area treatment plans and were later re-engaged under Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA).
Case Title: Shiv Dayal & Anr. V/s Kanshi Ram & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 60
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the mere presence of beneficiaries at the time of execution of a Will does not, by itself, render it suspicious, in the absence of evidence showing undue influence or active participation in its execution.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “In the present case, nobody deposed that the beneficiary had prevailed over the testator. Thus, it cannot be said that there was any active participation, and the learned Appellate Court erred in holding that the mere presence of the beneficiary at the time of the execution of the Will was sufficient to invalidate it.”
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh V/s Gaurav Sharma
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 61
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the alleged burial of a dead animal near a Chabutra used for offering water to the ancestors does not attract liability under Section 270 IPC. The Court remarked that the provision is concerned with acts likely to spread infectious disease and not with injury to religious feelings.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Though prosecution attempted to argue that by burying dead animal near Chabutra, which was allegedly raised to offer water to the ancestors of complainant, accused attempted to hurt the religious faith of the complainant but such action if any, will not make accused liable for being charged under Section 270 of IPC.”
Case Title: Ravi Chand V/s State of H.P. & others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 62
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the predominance of agricultural livelihood in an area does not preclude its inclusion within a municipal framework, clarifying that such inclusion does not prohibit farming or allied activities.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Agriculture, horticulture, and lawful animal husbandry are not prohibited merely by inclusion in a municipal area; therefore, the predominance of agricultural/rain-fed land or dependence on rural livelihoods, without pointing out any violation of statutory requirements, cannot by itself constitute a valid ground to negate municipal inclusion.
Case Name: Basant Lal V/s State of H.P. & others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 63
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a disqualification of six-years for Panchayat office bearers on account of false declarations in nomination forms is not arbitrary or excessive.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “6 years' disqualification has been provided with a purpose because any punishment provided for a period less than 5 years may render the disqualification to contest the elections redundant because in the Panchayati Raj Institutions, elections are held after completion of 5 years tenure and in case of disqualifying a person for a period less than 5 years, such person… shall be able to contest the next Panchayat elections…”
Case Name: Vikrant Bomsra V/s State of H.P. & others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 64
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that denial of promotion on the basis of uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Observing that even a single downgraded ACR, if not communicated, can adversely affect an employee's chances of promotion, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the petitioner be promoted to the post of Inspector of Police from the date his juniors were elevated, along with all consequential benefits.
Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “Since in the present case, the petitioner was not communicated about the ACRs of Average rating before considering his candidature for promotion… this Court is of the considered view that the respondents should promote the petitioner w.e.f. 31.10.2014 with all consequential benefits and he should be placed above his juniors.”
Case Title: Umavati V/s HPSEB & others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 65
The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed an appeal and held that a woman, though not a legally wedded spouse, would be entitled to family pension, having lived in a long cohabiting relationship with the deceased employee.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawlia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi remarked that: “The long cohabitation inter se the parties, the entry of the name of the appellant in the service book/pension record of the deceased (though subsequently withdrawn), … when considered with relevant factors like economic empowerment, social justice, dignity of the individual requires this Court to be sensitive to and positively inclined towards the weaker party. Thereby… the appellant… would be entitled to pension.”
Case Title: Umang Vohra V/s Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 66
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that criminal liability of company officials cannot be presumed merely on the basis of their designation, such as Managing Director or Director.
The Court reiterated that, for invoking vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the complaint must contain specific averments demonstrating that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that:“Simply because a person is a director of the company, it does not necessarily mean that he fulfils both the above requirements so as to make him liable.Conversely, without being a director, a person can be in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business.”
Case Title: Khem Singh V/s Dila Ram
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 67
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a defendant cannot be permitted to introduce certified copies of Jamabandi and mutation records at a belated stage after the conclusion of evidence, particularly when such documents are public in nature and presumed to be within his knowledge.
Justice Romesh Verma remarked that:“The documents sought to be produced are certified copies of Jamabandi and mutations, which are public documents, and it cannot be presumed that these were not within the knowledge of the petitioner.” “A perusal of the application does not disclose what prevented the petitioner/defendant from producing the said documents at an earlier stage, particularly at the time of filing the written statement.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar V/s State of H.P. & others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 68
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that while the police are competent to register and investigate cases of theft of illegally extracted minerals under the Indian Penal Code, cognizance of offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 cannot be taken on a police report and must be based on a complaint by an authorised officer.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that:“...dishonestly removing sand, gravel and other minerals… without the consent, constitute an offence of theft… the police can register a case, investigate the same and submit a final report..the Court cannot take cognisance of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Mining Act on a police report…”
Case Title: Court on its own motion V/s State of H.P. & others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 69
Himachal Pradesh High Court, questioned the Union Government over the exclusion of Shimla from the Regional Connectivity Scheme (UDAN) and observed that the hill State appeared to have been subjected to “step-motherly treatment” in the matter of air connectivity.
Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. negi remarked that: “Keeping in view the contrasting stand as such and the fact that the State is not being given the benefit of Regional Connectivity Scheme, we are of the considered opinion that the presence of respondent No.7 would be necessary for adjudication of the dispute, who shall explain as to why the State of Himachal Pradesh has been given the step-motherly treatment.”
Case Title: Ravinder and others V/s Varinder and others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 70
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that even where a demarcation report clearly establishes encroachment, grant of mandatory injunction is not automatic. Emphasising the equitable nature of such relief, the Court ruled that it may be denied where the plaintiff's conduct is found to be unfair or based on false pleadings.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that:“Therefore, the learned Courts below had rightly declined the discretionary relief of mandatory injunction after finding that the conduct of the plaintiff was not fair and he had resorted to falsehood. The Courts were not bound to grant the relief even if the demarcation report proved the encroachment made by the defendants. Hence, this substantial question of law is answered accordingly.”
Case Name: Dalel Singh V/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 71
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the defence of necessity under Section 81 IPC cannot be invoked where the accused, while allegedly attempting to avoid harm to one person, ends up causing greater harm to others.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “In the present case, even if the plea of the accused is accepted to be correct that he was trying to save a cyclist, he caused major harm by crushing two persons under the tyres of the bus, and he cannot claim the benefit of Section 81 of the IPC.”
Case Title: Reena Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 72
The Himachal Pradesh High Court stayed a State Government clarification that treated ASHA workers as part-time employees and consequently disqualified them from being elected as office bearers of Panchayats under Section 122(1)(g) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “a prima facie case is made out in favour of the petitioners for granting interim protection, as prayed”
Case Title: Joint Teachers Front of Himachal Pradesh V/s State of H.P. & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 73
The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the State Government's policy creating a separate sub-cadre of teachers for CBSE-affiliated government schools and mandating selection through written examination and counselling for in-service teachers.
Division bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “The criteria of selection in Para 5.5. of the Sub-Scheme prescribes a just and transparent mechanism of selection for filling up of posts from in-service teachers… giving an equal opportunity to desirous eligible in-service teachers… to apply and compete for said posts.”
Case Title: Rahul Dadhwal & others V/s State of H.P. & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 74
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that merely selling the matrimonial house cannot, by itself, be treated as an act of dowry harassment under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that: “In status report, it has come that matrimonial house of the complainant situate at Delhi was sold by the petitioners, but such act, if any, cannot be construed to be act of demanding dowry.”
Case Title: Surinder Sharma V/s Parveen Kalia & another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 75
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has quashed criminal defamation proceedings initiated against a journalist and a local businessman over publication of a news report based on a police complaint, holding that truthful reporting of facts contained in an FIR does not constitute defamation under Section 500 IPC.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that:“publication of the contents of the F.I.R. does not constitute the commission of an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC ., especially when the FIR has been lodged by the victim herself. It is only news which has been published, especially when there is no allegation that the news is false.”
Salochna Devi Vs. H.P.S.E.B.L.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 76
A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi held that ad hoc promotion made in excess of prescribed quota and as a stop-gap arrangement does not confer any right to claim seniority from the date of such ad hoc service.
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 77
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR and a Magistrate's order passed under Section 156(3) CrPC, holding that a complainant cannot directly approach the Magistrate without first complying with the mandatory requirement under Section 154(1) CrPC of furnishing information to the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla was hearing three connected petitions challenging the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. in an application filed under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Case Title: Pramod Kumar and Another V/s Hir Chand
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 78
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Kalpa, directing removal of an obstruction from a pathway allegedly used by villagers for decades, holding that the Magistrate had merely protected an existing right of user under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had not adjudicated any question of ownership.
Justice Sandeep Sharma Remarked that: "...learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate having taken note of report submitted by the Tehsildar, Sangla, directed the petitioners to remove the obstruction, erected by them in the path in dispute, but he nowhere decided the question of title, which admittedly can be decided by the Civil Court and not by Sub-Divisional Magistrate."
Case Title: Manik Kumar V/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 79
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the proprietor of a liquor bottling unit accused of illegally transporting Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), holding that transportation of 400 cases under a valid permit could not attract prosecution under Section 39 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act merely because some bottles bore incorrect batch numbers due to a labelling error.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “400 boxes of IMFL were being transported under valid permit and some of the bottles which were found of different batches, though was of Batch No.15, but labour responsible for labelling the Batch number wrongly stamped Batch Nos.9 and 14. On account of aforesaid discrepancy, if any, offence under Section 43 of the Act can be said to have been committed...”
Case Title: Vandana Kumari V/s State of H.P. & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 80
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that ex-officio members, including Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), do not possess a right to vote in elections for the offices of President and Vice-President of Municipal Councils and Nagar Panchayats.
Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: "There is no specific right given to ex-officio members to cast vote for the election of President and Vice-President of the Municipal Committee. Rather, ex-officio members have been impliedly and expressly excluded from the election process of the President and Vice-President as evident from Rule 2(d), Rules 88 to 92 of the H.P. Election Rules and Sections 22 and 25 of the H.P. Municipal Act."
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Daleep Kumar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 81
A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi held that a teacher who received a national award (Indira Gandhi NSS Award) from the President of India is entitled to the benefit of two years' extended service/salary increment, and the State cannot deny it based on the award being under a different scheme.
Workman With 240 Days Of Continuous Service, Termination Without Notice Is Illegal : HP HC
Case Title: Registrar Maharishi Markandeshwar Medical College vs. Padam Kuma
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 82
A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi held that termination of a workman who has completed 240 days of continuous service without complying with disciplinary proceedings or notice is illegal, and abandonment of service cannot be presumed in such case.
Case Title: Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 83
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the punishment of removal from service imposed on an ITBP constable for maintaining a consensual illicit relationship with the wife of his superior officer was disproportionate in the peculiar facts of the case.
Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi remarked that: "Once the superior officer had been held guilty of preparing the CD with the help of his laptop and forcing his junior to enter into the acts of misdemeanor, the present appellant cannot be imposed a grave punishment of removal from service."
Case Title: Rajesh Kakkar v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Citation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 84
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that an FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay in investigation or filing of the charge-sheet, unless the accused demonstrates that such delay has caused prejudice affecting a fair trial.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: "Thus, while the delay is substantial and regrettable, the Court is not persuaded that it infringes the Petitioner's right to a fair and speedy trial under Article 21 in a manner warranting the extraordinary relief of quashing the FIR. The test is whether the delay has caused such prejudice to the accused as to render the trial unfair or oppressive… thus, the delay, though regrettable, has not translated into any apparent denial of a fair trial and, therefore, does not warrant the extraordinary relief of quashing the proceedings."