Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 37 to 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 49Nominal Index:Ankush Thakur v. State of HP & Ors,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 37Pawan Basant Borle v/s Union of India & others, 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 38Diwakar Dev Sharma v/s Railway Police Force and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 39M/s Zenith-Event & Services and another v. State of HP and others., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 40 Sandeep Kumar v/s...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 37 to 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 49
Nominal Index:
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
ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS
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."
Case Title: Pawan Basant Borle v/s Union of India & others
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.”
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.
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.”