Dismissed
Sonika Sharma v. State of Hp and Others
Himachal Pradesh HCCWP/8965/2024
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and…
What the court decided
AI extract
Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Smt. Sonika Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others
CWP No. 8965 of 2024
03.12.2025 Present Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State.
Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Compliance affidavit filed at the behest of the respondents clearly reveals that the respondents, after having considered the case of the petitioner in terms of the mandate contained in the judgment, have rejected the same on the ground that petitioner is not similarly situate to the petitioner in Taj Mohammad case. Since there was only direction to consider the case of the petitioner in light of Taj Mohammad case and respondents, after having considered the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, have rejected the claim, no further orders are required to be passed in the instant proceedings and accordingly, same are closed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, laying therein challenge to the order passed in purported compliance of the judgment, if so advised.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge
December 03, 2025 (shankar)
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Taj Mohammad caseReferred¶6
Smt. Sonika Sharma
State of Himachal Pradesh
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court