Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 246 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 262 Nominal Index:Prem Chand Verma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and another, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 246Veeku v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 247Raj Industries v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & others, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 248Seema Sharma v/s Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and Anr., ...
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 246 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 262
Nominal Index:
Prem Chand Verma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and another, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 246
Veeku v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 247
Raj Industries v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & others, 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 248
Seema Sharma v/s Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 249
Nanak Chand v/s Madan Lal., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 250
Sapna Devi v/s State of H.P. and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 251
Atul Sharma v/s Union of India and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 252
Controller of Stores, Northern Railway v/s M/s CBM Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 253
Himinder Lal & others v/s Madan Lal and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 254
Baljinder Kaur v/s State of H.P. and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 255
Kabir khan & others v/s State of H.P. and another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 256
M/s J.B. Rolling Mills Limited v. Union of India & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 257
Aarav Potan & others v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 258
Court on its own motion v/s Union of India & others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 259
M/s Tania International Company l v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 260
Urmila Devi v/s State of H.P. and others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 261
Faqeer Chand v/s High Court of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 262
Case Name: Prem Chand Verma v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 246
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once the Chief Justice grants extension of service to his Principal Private Secretary with full consequential benefits under Article 229 of the Constitution, the administrative establishment does not have any right to seek further clarification from the State.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj stated that: “In our considered opinion, once the order of re-extension had been specifically passed, the query was not required to be made, which has led to the unsavoury situation”
Case Name: Veeku v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 247
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the opinion of a subject expert cannot be substituted by the Court unless it is demonstrably wrong on the face of the record.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “…opinion given by expert cannot be substituted by Court, until same on the face of it is wrong… best person to verify the correctness… is the person who has set-up the paper.”
Electricity Ombudsman Can't Decide Review Petition In Absence Of Both Parties: HP High Court
Case Name: Raj Industries v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 248
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the Ombudsman while deciding a review petition cannot act contrary to Regulation 37(8) Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman Regulations and decide in complete absence of both parties.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “The impugned order demonstrates that while dismissing the review petition it inserted certain portions in the earlier order… This also could not have been done… in the absence of the parties… insertions… can be done only after providing an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.”
Case Name:Seema Sharma v/s Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 249
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a university can't apply inconsistent standards by treating a candidate's Master's degree as an eligible subject for PhD admission but ignoring the same qualification during selection for the post of Assistant Professor.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “...respondents are estopped from adopting different yardsticks while considering M.Sc. (Botany) as 'concerned' subject for Ph.D. and ignoring the same... for the post of Assistant Professor.”
Case Name: Nanak Chand v/s Madan Lal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 250
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that while deciding an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the Appellate Court cannot question the veracity of the Local Commissioner's report, as examining its veracity lies within the domain of the parties and must be tested through evidence.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Raising objections to the report… lay in the domain of the respondent… it was not for the learned Court to have had commented upon the veracity of the report… Had the application been allowed… it would not have amounted to the admission of the averments…”
Case Name: Sapna Devi v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 251
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the 'treatment from Tantriks' could not be accepted as a valid or permissible ground to justify a trainee's prolonged absence from training as a constable.
The Court further noted that the record clearly revealed no admissible medical evidence, and her conduct was incorrigible.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “Records reveal that the petitioner had taken a stand that she remained under-treatment from Tantriks cannot be accepted as a permissible ground, to obviate the petitioner charge of willful absence. In these circumstances, conduct of the petitioner being incorrigible definitely points towards the willful absence to be an act attributable to the petitioner solely.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Six-Month Extension Granted To Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena
Case Name: Atul Sharma v/s Union of India and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 252
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld a six-month extension of service granted to the Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena, and held that its role is not to substitute its own view for that of the Government.
The Court reiterated that as Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 permits such extension and due process was followed, there was no ground to intervene.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “This Court would not be in a position to substitute the opinion of the Competent Authority… once the due process has been carried out before grant of permission.”
Filing Entrepreneur Memorandum Not Mandatory Under MSME Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Controller of Stores, Northern Railway v/s M/s CBM Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 253
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that filing an Entrepreneur Memorandum is not a mandatory requirement for micro and small enterprises under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.
The Court remarked that micro and small enterprises are not bound to file the Entrepreneur Memorandum within 180 days of commencement of the MSMED Act, as the filing was voluntary, which was clarified by a 2007 government notification.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that:“…notification clarifying that for micro and small enterprises… there is no limitation of 180 days… and these enterprises can file EM anytime they decide to do.”
Case Name: Himinder Lal & others v/s Madan Lal and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 254
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that Section 92(1)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure is “very widely worded”, empowering courts to grant such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.
The Court further remarked that Section 92(1)(h) is broad and allows “further or other relief” necessary for trust administration, including examining alienation of trust property.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “Section 92 sub-Clause (1) (h) of CPC is very widely worded… the power of the Courts would depend upon as to what relief has to be granted at the time of the final decision and whether it is to be exercised qua the alienation… has to be decided after evidence is led and at this stage even otherwise cannot be done.”
Case Name: Baljinder Kaur v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 255
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a candidate who chooses not to apply under the reserved category cannot later claim the benefit of reservation after failing in the selection process.
Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “…once the petitioner has chosen not to avail benefit of reservation available as OBC candidate, then, after participation and having remained unsuccessful, the petitioner has neither any locus nor any right to turn around and claim appointment against OBC post…”
Case Name: Kabir khan & others v/s State of H.P. and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 256
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed 29 petitions which challenged the legality of arrests on the ground that the police did not furnish written grounds of arrest.
The Court remarked that the Supreme Court's directions mandating written communication of grounds of arrest in the judgement of Mihir Rajesh Shah v/s State of Maharashtra apply prospectively and does not invalidate arrests made prior to the judgment.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that: “…this procedure… shall govern arrests henceforth… this means that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has… made directions… prospective… the present petitioners cannot assail their arrest… because [the judgment] is prospective in nature.”
Case Title: M/s J.B. Rolling Mills Limited v. Union of India & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 257
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, applying the Supreme Court's Armour Security case, held that once proceedings are initiated by either the State or Central GST authority, parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same issue are barred under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
The Court directed both authorities to coordinate and ensure that the assessee is not subjected to multiple adjudicatory processes on the same subject matter.
Justices Vivek Singh Thakur and Sushil Kukreja examined the issue related to prohibition contained in Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”), against the initiation of parallel proceedings on the same subject matter, despite an earlier initiation of proceedings by another jurisdictional authority.
Case Name:Aarav Potan & others v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 258
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by Bonafide Himachali students who were denied eligibility for MBBS/BDS admissions under the State Quota.
The Court held that even though the petitioners were Himachali and had qualified NEET they were not eligible for state quota as they had completed part of their schooling outside Himachal Pradesh due to their parents' private employment outside the State.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “With respect to the private employees also, when once parents have moved outside in a private employment and wards obtaining education outside, they are not likely to come back, thus, their exclusion as aforestated footing cannot be said to be irrational or illegal.”
Case Name: Court on its own motion v/s Union of India & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 259
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, while taking suo motu cognisance of the devastation caused by the excess rainfall in 2025, held that both the State Government and the Union of India failed to effectively enforce Corporate Social Responsibility obligations under the Companies Act, 2013.
The Court noted that despite a clear statutory framework, no steps were taken to utilise the CSR funds for disaster relief and rehabilitation of infrastructure.
Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj Observed that: “Perusal of the affidavit dated 01.12.2025… would go on to show that the State had not issued any directions to the Companies under the Corporate Social Responsibilities (CSR) provision, specially for unprecedented rainfall in 2025, which has led to the crippling of the infrastructure.”
Case Name: M/s Tania International Company l v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 260
The Himachal Pradesh High Court passed directions in a case which challenges Clause F(c) in the Notices Inviting Tenders issued by the Health & Family Welfare Department.
For reference: “Clause F(c) prescribes that only firms with prior experience of hospital sanitation within the State of Himachal Pradesh shall be eligible to tender for sanitation services in public health institutions.”
Pursuant to the petition, the Court recorded a representation which was addressed to the Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, and observed that there appears to be no rational nexus between the restrictive eligibility clause and the stated objective of ensuring quality sanitation services.
Thus, Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents-State to take a decision on the representation within four weeks, and to ensure that any order rejecting the representation is accompanied by valid reasons.
Case Name: Urmila Devi v/s State of H.P. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 261
Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld acquittal of an accused in rape and criminal intimidation case, holding that that the testimony of the prosecutrix did not inspire confidence, as it was full of material contradictions and made improvements at every stage of the proceedings.
The Court further remarked that the prosecutrix exaggerated her version over time, which made it impossible to rely on her submissions.
Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked;
“Here is a case where the prosecutrix step by step made improvements in her version, thus it is difficult to ascertain that which of her versions is trustworthy and reliable.”
Case Name: Faqeer Chand v/s High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 262
The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Faqeer Chand, who challenged his discharge from service during the period of probation while working as a Peon in the establishment of the High Court.
The Court held that the impugned order was a discharge, passed in accordance with the terms of appointment and service rules, and did not amount to a punitive or stigmatic termination merely because criminal proceedings were pending against the employee.
Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “We are of the considered opinion that the satisfaction of the employer having been breached, the employer was well justified in discharging the employee during the period of probation… the petition stands dismissed”