Himachal Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest : March 2026

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 Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and others., 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 41Tara Devi v/s State of H.P. & others.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 42Pankaj Chauhan & others v/s State of H.P. & Other.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 43Kishori Lal v/s Surender Kumar.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 44State of H.P. v/s Dhruv Dev.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 45The State of HP and Ors v. Greta Devi.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 46 Lagnesh Verma v/s State of H.P. & others .,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 47Nehru Yuva Club of Village Manlog-Badog & Anr.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 48Arvind Verma V/s Dhian Singh.,2026 LiveLaw (HP) 49ORDERS/JUDGEMENTSCase Title: Ankush Thakur v. State of HP & Ors, Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 37The 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 & othersCitation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 38The 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) 39The 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 othersCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 40The 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 othersCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (HP) 41The 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. & othersCitation:2026 LiveLaw (HP) 42The 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...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Monthly Digest : March 2026

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags