The petitioner had been re-engaged pursuant to a Division Bench order, rendering the contempt petition infructuous. The court closed the petition as nothing remained to be adjudicated.
Petition closed as infructuous.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No.1331 of 2026
Date of decision:16.09.2026
Krishan Dutt ...Petitioner
Versus
Sudha Devi & others ...Respondents
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge . Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General.
Romesh Verma, Judge (oral):
During the course of the hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record copy of order dated 16.09.2026, whereby the petitioner has been re-engaged. The said fact has been duly acknowledged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(Romesh Verma) Judge
16th September, 2026 (vt)
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Krishan Dutt
Sudha Devi
Romesh Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
