Sushil Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 12269 of 2026. Decided on : 22nd July , 2026.

¶3

Sushil Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ... .Respondents.

¶4

Coram:

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Addl. Advocate General.

¶7

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral).

¶8

Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate

¶9

General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the

¶10

respondents.

¶11

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for following reliefs:-

¶12

“(i) That an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to take cognizance of the complaint dated 20.06.2026 (Annexure P-2) and lodge a case FIR against the private respondent Nos. 9 and 10 and others, if any, found to be involved in the instant case of embezzlement of government revenue/ public funds and also, to order an independent & time-bound inquiry/investigation into the embezzlement/ misappropriation

¶13

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

¶14

…2…

¶15

of Government money amounting to Rs. 26,99,300/-(Rupees Twenty Six Lac & Ninety Nine Thousand Three Hundred), as highlighted in the above said complaint duly supported by the cogent proof contained in Annexure P-1 and accordingly, the police officials including those who have hatched conspiracy in this behalf and protected the accused persons/ respondent Nos. 9 and 10, be also booked & proceeded against criminally as well as departmentally so as to stop such heinous crime and corrupt practices in future;

¶16

(ii) That an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus may also be issued, directing the respondent No. 4 - SV & ACB to investigate the matter & take appropriate action in accordance with law;

¶17

(iii) That an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus may further be issued, directing the respondents to preserve and produce all relevant records including cash books, treasury challans, receipt books, bank records, audit reports and departmental correspondences exchanged between the administrative officer and the private respondent Nos. 9 & 10 and others, if any;”

¶18

In light of the fact that the petitioner has not prayed for any

¶19

relief for himself, therefore, obviously this is not a service matter per se, as the petitioner wants action to be taken against the private respondents for their alleged acts of omission and commission and as the issue is

¶20

being highlighted by the petitioner as a public-spirited person, as has

¶21

…3…

¶22

been submitted by the learned counsel, he obviously has to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under public interest litigation. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a public

¶23

interest litigation, if so advised, in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶24

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶25

22^nd July, 2026. (jai)

Sushil Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeewan Singh Vs State of Hp

Madhu Deshta Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vaibhav Chona Vs State of Hp

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Shailza Vs State of Hp

Ritu Sharma Vs State of Hp