Neelama Devi Vs Rajesh Sharma and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Neelama Devi Vs Rajesh Sharma and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt proceedings closed; notices issued to respondents No. 1 to 9 discharged; petitioner reserved liberty to pursue her surviving grievances, if any, including against the order dated 31.03.2026, in accordance with law; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.3 breached his assurances on the basis of which CWP No. 2875/2026 (Neelama Devi versus State of H.P. and others) was disposed of on 18.03.2026.

Court's answer

Taking note of the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 9 and the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the present contempt proceedings are closed and the notices issued to respondents No. 1 to 9 are discharged.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is reserved liberty to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of her surviving grievances, if any, including against the order dated 31.03.2026, in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS — COMPLIANCE WITH COURT'S EARLIER ORDER — CLOSURE OF PETITION. COPC No.594 of 2026 (Neelama Devi v. Rajesh Sharma and others), High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, decided 15.06.2026 by Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. The contempt petition arose from allegations that respondent No.3 (Deputy Commissioner, Chamba) breached his assurances on the basis of which CWP No. 2875/2026 (Neelama Devi versus State of H.P. and others) was disposed of on 18.03.2026. Respondents No. 1 to 9 replied through respondent No.3, pleading that the re-assessment report pursuant to communication dated 31.01.2026 had been submitted prior to the order dated 18.03.2026, and that in compliance with the Court's order in Neelama Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others, the final order passed under the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rules framed thereunder considered the re-assessment report only to the limited extent of three works mentioned therein, otherwise relying on the Inquiry Officer's findings. On counsel for the petitioner submitting that the proceedings be closed with liberty reserved, the Court took note of the reply and submissions, closed the present contempt proceedings, discharged the notices issued to respondents No. 1 to 9, and reserved the petitioner's liberty to seek appropriate remedy for her surviving grievances, if any, including against the order dated 31.03.2026, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stood disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

COPC No.594 of 2026 Decided on: 15.06.2026

_________________________________________________________________ Neelama Devi ....Petitioner Versus Rajesh Sharma and Ors. …Respondent ________________________________________________________________ Coram_

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

1 Whether approved for reporting?

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Jeevan Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 9.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Following order was passed in this petition on

15.05.2026:-

“Notice confined to respondents No. 1 to 9 which is waived by learned Additional Advocate General. Let reply/ compliance affidavit be filed within two weeks on the affidavit of respondent No.3 in view of allegations levelled in the petition about respondent No.3 having breached his assurances on the basis of which, CWP No. 2875/2026 (Neelama Devi versus State of H.P. and others) was disposed of on 18.03.2026. List thereafter”

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

2 -

2. Respondents No. 1 to 9 have filed reply to the contempt petition through respondent No.3 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. inter alia, pleading that:Re-assessment report, pursuant to communication dated 31.01.2026 had already been submitted prior to the order dated 18.03.2026 passed by this Court; In compliance to the order passed by this Court in

Neelama Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others² , it has been ensured that while passing the final order as per the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rules framed thereunder, respondent No.3 had considered the re-assessment report only to the limited extent of three works mentioned in the aforesaid order passed in Neelama Devi² ; Except for limited modifications relating to the said three works, the final order was passed based upon Inquiry Officer’s findings and the record attached therein.

3. In view of above pleadings, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though these proceedings be closed, however, petitioner be reserved liberty to assail the order dated 31.03.2026 in accordance with law in

2 CWP No. 2875 of 2026 decided on 18.03.2026

3 -

appropriate proceedings.

4. Taking note of reply filed by the respondents No. 1 to 9 and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, present contempt proceedings are closed. Notices issued to the respondents No. 1 to 9 are discharged. Petitioner, shall, however, be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of her surviving grievances, if any, including against order dated 31.03.2026, in accordance with law.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

June 15, 2026 R.Atal