Disposed

Mahinder Kumar v. Rakesh Kanwar and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2026COPC/1363/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner invoked contempt jurisdiction alleging non-compliance with an earlier High Court direction to decide a representation within six weeks by a speaking order. The Court directed the competent authority to comply with that judgment within six weeks, or communicate any order already passed on the representation, and disposed of the petition and pending miscellaneous applications.

What did the court decide?

The competent authority was directed to comply with the judgment dated 26.11.2024 by passing a speaking order on the representation, if not already passed, within six weeks, and to communicate any existing decision or speaking order to the petitioner within that period.

Mahinder Kumar Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others — Contempt of Court | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

2026:HHC:40557

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

COPC No. 1363 of 2026 Date of decision: 21.09.2026. Mahinder Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus Rakesh Kanwar & others ...Respondents.

¶4

Coram:

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner : Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

¶8

Ranjan Sharma, Judge:

¶9

Petitioner has invoked contempt jurisdiction of this Court, alleging non-compliance of the judgment/order dated 26.11.2024 [Annexure C-1], passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in CWP No. 8070 of 2024, titled as Santosh Kumar & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, directing the Competent Authority to decide the representation [Annexure P-13] annexed with

¶10

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶11

-2-

¶12

the said writ petition] within six weeks, by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law.

¶13

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that neither representation has been decided nor speaking order has been communicated to them as yet.

¶14

3. Heard.

¶15

4. Notice. Mr. Rahul Thakur, Learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶16

5. In aforesaid circumstances and as prayed by Learned Counsel for petitioner, instant petition, is disposed of, with direction to the Respondents-Competent Authority, to comply with the judgment dated 26.11.2024 [Annexure C-1], by passing a speaking order [if not already passed], within a period of six weeks positively, from today.

¶17

6. Needless to say that in case representation has already been decided, the order on the representation /speaking order be conveyed to the petitioner, within the above period. Notices issued to the respondents shall stand discharged, accordingly.

¶18

-3-

¶19

In aforesaid terms, instant petition and all the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶20

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶21

21^st September, 2026. (kck)

Mahinder Kumar v. Rakesh Kanwar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahinder Kumar v. Rakesh Kanwar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases