Kuldeep Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶11

Notice. Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, learned Additional

¶12

Advocate General accepts notice of behalf of the respondents.

¶13

The petitioner herein has approached this Court praying for the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set-aside the impugned suspension order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the District Panchayat Officer, Chamba (Annexure P-4) and impugned order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba (Annexure P-5) in the interest of justice and fair play.

¶14

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

¶15

2

¶16

2025:HHC:32517

¶17

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to immediately reinstate the Petitioner to his position as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Thaner Kothi, District Chamba, with all consequential - benefits and entitlements;

¶18

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ. order or the direction commanding Respondents to conduct a fresh, fair and impartial enquiry into the complaint, if deemed necessary, by an independent and competent officer strictly in accordance with the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions;

¶19

(iv) Issue appropriate directions to the Respondents to ensure that all pending development works under Gram Panchayat Thanei Kothi are resumed and completed expeditiously for the benefit of the public;”

¶20

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the orders appended with the petition and submitted that the petitioner, who is Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Thanei Kothi, has been placed under suspension by the District Panchayat Officer vide Annexure P-4, dated 22.08.2025. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who did not grant any stay order of suspension. This act of non-grant of stay has also been assailed by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner, however, the Divisional Commissioner has listed the case in terms of order dated

¶21

3

¶22

2025:HHC:32517

¶23

15.09.2025 for 16.10.2025. He prays that in light of the fact that the order in terms whereof, the petitioner was placed under suspension, is a non-speaking order as it does not contain any reasoning as to why the authority has placed the petitioner under suspension, the petition be allowed and the order of suspension be quashed and set aside.

¶24

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that in the light of the fact that the matter with regard to stay of the order is pending with the authority concerned, the petition is premature.

¶25

Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that the appeal that has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, who while exercising the appellate powers has not granted stay against the suspension order is pending before Divisional Commissioner, interest of justice would be served, in case, this petition is disposed of with the direction that let the appeal filed before the Divisional Commissioner be decided expeditiously. Till then, this Court is staying the operation of order of suspension of the petitioner passed on 22.08.2025.

¶26

Before parting, this Court would like to make an observation. In the light fact that the party had approached the learned Divisional Commissioner feeling aggrieved by non-grant of

¶27

4

¶28

2025:HHC:32517

¶29

stay by the Deputy Commissioner, office of Divisional Commissioner should have been sensitive to the issue and rather than fixing the case after a month, the case ought to have been ordered to be listed at the earliest possible date. The Court deprecates this practice because by listing such cases after a month as from the date of filing of the same, the very purpose of filing such case is defeated.

¶30

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶32

September 18, 2025 ( narender )

Kuldeep Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhan Raj Gir @ Vinod Gir Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Squadron Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Subhash Chand Vs Shalu Sharma

Saroop Chand and Others Vs Mani Ram

Shyam Singh Chandel Vs Rakesh Thakur