Narender Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

Narender Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with direction that the complaints filed by the petitioner with the Authorities be taken to their logical conclusion in accordance with law; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the private dispute raised in the writ petition can be agitated by invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Court's answer

Private disputes cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as doing so apparently amounts to abuse of the process of law; the Court therefore declined to go into the controversy raised in the writ petition.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the complaints filed by the petitioner with the Authorities be taken to their logical conclusion in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

It was clarified that passing of the order confers no right upon the petitioner to again invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court; if not satisfied with the action of the Authorities, the petitioner may approach appropriate Fora for redressal of his grievance.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP No. 12829 of 2025) — Article 226, Constitution of India — private dispute — abuse of process of law. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh declined to enter into the controversy raised in the writ petition, holding that private disputes cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the same apparently amounts to abuse of the process of law. The petition was disposed of with a direction that the complaints filed by the petitioner with the Authorities be taken to their logical conclusion in accordance with law, with a clarification that the order confers no right upon the petitioner to again invoke the writ jurisdiction and that, if unsatisfied with the Authorities' action, he may approach appropriate Fora for redressal of his grievance. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stood disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel, J., oral judgment dated 08.08.2025.)

2025:HHC:26796

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No. 12829 of 2025 Decided on : 08.08.2025

Narender Kumar.

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

…Respondents

Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aja Whether approved for r	y Mohan Goel, J eporting?¹	udge
For the petitioner :	Mr. Roop Advocate.	Lal	Chaudhary,
For the respondents :	Mr. Pushpinde Advocate	r Jasw Gene	al, Additional ral, for
	respondents-S	tate.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

Notice confined to the State.

Without going into the controversy raised in this writ petition, as this Court is of the considered view that private disputes cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the same apparently

amounts to abuse of the process of law, this writ petition is

disposed of with the direction that the complaints that have

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2

2025:HHC:26796

been filed with the Authorities by the petitioner, be taken to their logical conclusion, in accordance with law. However, it is clarified that passing of this order will not confer any right upon the petitioner to again invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the action of the Authorities, the petitioner may approach appropriate Fora for redressal of his grievance.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, in abovesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

August 08, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)