Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 4, 2025 To August 10, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 114 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 121Nominal Index:State of H.P. v/s Anu Bala & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 114Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sen & Others v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 115Punam Gupta and another v/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 116State of H.P. V/s Nitya Nand & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 117V (a juvenile) v/s State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 118Sh. Mukhtyar Singh V/s Gyan Singh & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 119A.Aditya & others v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 120Salman Khan v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 121HP High Court Denies Relief To Cops Accused Of Outraging Woman's Modesty, Says State Can't Protect Them From Probe By Filing Revision PleaCase Name: State of H.P. v/s Anu Bala & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 114The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the State cannot challenge a court's direction for investigation merely because the proposed accused are government servants.The Court emphasised that, as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India, every individual is entitled to equality before law or the equal protection of the laws. Thus, the Court held that “the State cannot discriminate between the Government employees and ordinary citizens by protecting a person against whom an offence has been alleged and investigation has been directed”.Dismissing the Criminal revision petition filed by the State, Justice Virender Singh observed that: “Merely, since, the proposed accused persons are Government servants, will not give an authority to the State to assail the order, passed by the learned trial Court, against the proposed accused persons, by way of filing the Criminal Revision, before this Court”.Providing Sewerage Connections Is Statutory Duty Of Municipal Council, Consent Of Property Owners Not Required: HP High CourtCase Name: Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sen & Others v/s State of H.P. & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 115The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that under Section 141 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994, it is the duty of the Municipal Council to provide sewerage connections, and it cannot withhold this service merely due to objections from private landowners.Rejecting the contention of Municipal Council, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel held that: “There is no statutory requirement that the Council has to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the person from whose property the sewerage line is to pass. In case, Section 141 of the Act is interpreted as such, then the Municipal Authorities would not be able to provide majority of the residents' sewerage connection and the Section will become otiose.”HP High Court Declares S. 163-A HP Land Revenue Act As Unconstitutional; Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Govt Land By Feb 28, 2026Case Name: Punam Gupta and another v/s State of H.P. & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 116In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday (August 5) declared Section 163-A of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1952, which empowered the State Government to frame rules for regularisation of encroachments on government land, as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.In its order, a Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi observed that the impugned provision is a 'legislation for a class of dishonest persons' which seeks to regularize all illegal encroachments, and thus, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.State Can't Recover Overpaid Salaries After 5 Yrs, In Absence Of Misrepresentation From Workers: HP High Court Aids Class-III WorkersCase Name: State of H.P. V/s Nitya Nand & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 117The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed 36 LPAs filed by the state, holding that the recovery of overpaid salaries after 5 years cannot be made from class-III workers, when there was no misrepresentation on the part of the workers.Upholding the finding of the Single bench, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia & Justice Ranjan Sharma held that: “since the petitioners are Class-III employees and the recovery sought to be effected, pertains to the amount erroneously paid to them more than five years ago, the same is impermissible in law.”Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds JJB's Decision To Try 16-Yr-Old As An Adult For Alleged Rape Of 7-Yr-Old GirlCase Name: V (a juvenile) v/s State of H.P.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 118In the alleged rape of a 7 year old girl by a 16 year old boy, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that preliminary assessment conducted by the Medical Board in accordance with Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015 found that that the accused had an IQ of 92 and was fully aware of the consequences of his acts as he had threatened the victim and told her to not disclose the incident to anyone.Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that “ the Medical Board was to assess the mental capacity of petitioner, which it had assessed and found the petitioner's IQ to be 92; therefore, the mere fact that the documents were not...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 4, 2025 To August 10, 2025

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags