Disposed¶20

Sanjay Verma v. the State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Jul 2026CWP/11814/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Government residence maintenance writ, Himachal Pradesh High Court 2026; Nabha Estates Shimla Type-II quarter repair/renovation; HP Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules 1994; representation Annexure P-6; earlier rejection Annexure P-4 dated 26.02.2026; direction to State respondents No.1 & 2; two-month compliance; petition disposed with pending applications; bench: CJ G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents No.1 & 2-State to take positive action on the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-6) and take remedial steps, within two months; writ petition and pending applications disposed of accordingly. ¶20

Sanjay Verma Vs the State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents-State are required to carry out necessary repair, renovation and maintenance of Set No.L-II/88, Type-II, Nabha Estates, Shimla-4, allotted to the petitioner, by acting on his representation (Annexure P-6).

¶12

Court's answer

Since the property belongs to the respondents-State and had been allotted to the petitioner on 11.04.2025, it is appropriate that the State maintain the property, which is in dilapidated condition, before it is occupied by the petitioner.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Respondents No.1 & 2-State are directed to take positive action on the representation given in Annexure P-6 and to take remedial steps thereon.

¶18

Key takeaways

Compliance with the direction is to be completed within a period of two months.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP No.11814 of 2026, decided 20.07.2026) — Sanjay Verma v. State of HP and Others, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; oral judgment authored by Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia with Justice Bipin Chander Negi concurring. The petitioner, allotted government residence Set No.L-II/88, Type-II, Nabha Estates, Shimla-4 on 11.04.2025 under the Himachal Pradesh Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994, sought repair, renovation and maintenance thereof. His earlier request for alternative accommodation on medical grounds had been rejected on 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-4); a fresh representation dated 18.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) highlighted water stains on the ceiling and the premises' extremely dilapidated state. Holding that the property belongs to the respondents-State, the Court directed respondents No.1 & 2-State to take positive action on Annexure P-6 and take remedial steps within two months, and disposed of the writ petition along with pending applications.

¶1

2026:HHC:30045

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.11814 of 2026 Decided on : 20.07.2026

¶4

Sanjay Verma	...Petitioner
	Versus

¶5

State of HP and Others …Respondents.

¶6

Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the petitioner : Mr. M.A. Safee & Mr.Pranav Kaushal, Advocates. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2/State.

¶10

G.S. Sandhawalia, Justice (Oral)

¶11

Notice. Mr. Gobind Korla, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a request for carrying out necessary repair, renovation and maintenance work in Set No.L-II/88, Type-II, Nabha Estates, Shimla-4.

¶13

It is the case of the petitioner that he had been allotted the said set at initial stage on 11.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) on the basis of his seniority as per the Himachal Pradesh Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994. At one stage,

¶14

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

¶15

-2-

¶16

he had represented for an alternative accommodation due to his medical condition, which had been rejected on 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-4). However, subsequently, he had again represented on 18.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) for repairs, to be done in this premises at Nabha highlighting its poor condition, and having water stains on ceiling of the same and being the same in extremely dilapidated state.

¶17

Keeping in view the fact that the property, as such, belongs to the respondents-State and had been allotted to the petitioner on 11.04.2025, it would be appropriate if the respondentsState is directed to maintain the property, which is in dilapidated condition before it is occupied by the petitioner.

¶18

In these circumstances, we direct respondents No.1 & 2- State to take positive action, as such, on the representation given in Annexure P-6 and take remedial steps, as such, on the same.

¶19

Needful be done within a period of two months. The

¶20

present writ petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.

¶21

(G.S. Sandhawalia)

¶22

Chief Justice

¶23

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶24

20^th July, 2026 (meera)

Sanjay Verma v. the State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Verma v. the State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp through Additional Chief Secretary (Forest) Vs Bir Singh

Sanghmitra Sadhu Vs Union of India and Another

Ram Saroop Vs Mc Shimla

State of Hp and Ors. Vs Sunil Kumar

Yashpal Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Another

Indima Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others