Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 7, 2025 To July 13, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 81 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 89Nominal Index:Gopal Chand v/s Ramesh Kumar & another., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 81Nishant Mahajan & Anr. v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 82Rajesh Kumar Verma v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P., Madan Kumar v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 83Deep Raj v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 84Anil Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 85State of H.P. & Ors. V/s Jai Ram.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 86State of H.P. V/s Sukhan Devi (deceased) through LRs.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 87Dalip Singh & another V/s Khatri Ram & another.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 88Shirgul Filling Station V/s Kamal Sharma.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 89Calling A Person 'Gunda', Alleging 'Gunda Raj' Without Justification Amounts To Defamation: HP High Court Convicts Chief Editor Of NewspaperCase Title: Gopal Chand v/s Ramesh Kumar & anotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 81The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that calling a person “Gunda” and accusing him of disturbing the peace and spreading “Gundaraj” without any justification or basis amounts to defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “Calling a person Gunda spreading Gundaraj, being a member of Shallow Theatre People without any justification, can be with the intent to harm the reputation of a person”.Mere Use Of Encroached Forest Land Does Not Make Person Necessary Party In Eviction Proceedings Filed By Owner: Himachal Pradesh High CourtCase Title: Nishant Mahajan & Anr. v/s State of H.P. & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 82The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that individuals who merely use a path or road constructed on a forest do not have locus standi to challenge an eviction order against the encroachers.Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua: “Petitioners were not necessary parties to the lis before the Collector Forest. They have no locus standi for assailing the order passed by Collector Forest. Mere user of encroachment over the encroached/broken forest land would not make a person necessary party in the eviction proceedings filed by owner of the land against the culprits.”HP HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Rules Of Judicial Promotion Exam, Says Judicial Officers Should've Known Consequences Of Participating Without ProtestCase Title: Rajesh Kumar Verma v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P., Madan Kumar v/s Hon'ble High Court of H.P.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 83The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that once Judicial officers had participated in a departmental exam for promotion, they were estopped from challenging the rules if they had accepted them when they chose to appear for the exam without any protest.Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Sandeep Sharma held: “Petitioners are estopped by their act and conduct from assailing the Regulation in question and on this sole ground, petitions deserve to be rejected particularly when the petitioners belong to class of Judicial Officers who are supposed and expected to be well versed with consequences of participating in the selection process without any protest and filing the petitions only after failing in qualifying the written examination.”[Road Accident] “High Speed” Is A Relative Term, Accused Can't Be Held Guilty Solely Based On Speed: Himachal Pradesh High CourtCase Title: Deep Raj v/s State of H.P. & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 84The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that stating that a vehicle was being driven at “high speed” is not enough, by itself, to prove rashness or negligence. Speed is a relative term and must be explained with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case.Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “Thus, the accused cannot be held liable based on high speed alone without any further evidence that the accused was in breach of his duty to take care, which he had failed to do”.State Cannot Transfer Police Officers Without Recommendation By Police Establishment Committee: Himachal Pradesh High CourtCase Title: Anil Kumar V/s State of H.P. & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 85Reinforcing statutory safeguards for police transfers, the Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the transfer of a Sub-Divisional Police Officer, holding that such transfers must be made on recommendations of the police establishment committee and the State Government can't bypass this mandatory procedure.The court said that transfers shall be in accordance with Sections 12 and 56 of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2012 and should adhere to the Supreme Court guidelines laid down in Prakash Singh and Others Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2006.Procedural Lapses By Revenue Authorities Can't Defeat Substantive Rights Under Himachal Pradesh Nautor Rules: High CourtCase Title: State of H.P. & Ors. V/s Jai RamCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 86The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that procedural lapses by the revenue authority cannot defeat substantive rights vested in a party.The court opined that due to procedural lapses of the revenue authorities in...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 7, 2025 To July 13, 2025

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags