The High Court closed the petition after the petitioner's counsel stated the issue had been resolved and submitted a communication to that effect. No substantive ruling was made on the merits.
Proceedings closed as issue resolved; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.
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.
1
2026:HHC:40095-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.3677 of 2015 Date of decision: 19.09.2026
| Dr. Satish Chander Malhotra Versus |
…..Petitioner |
|---|---|
| Union of India and others | …..Respondents |
| Coram |
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
| For the Petitioner | : Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate. |
|---|---|
| For the Respondents | : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.1-UOI. None for respondents No. 2 to 5. |
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
raised by the petitioner in the interregnum stands resolved. She has placed a communication that has been sent by the petitioner to the learned Senior Counsel.
2. In the light of this development, these proceedings are closed.s Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
(Yogesh Jaswal) Judge 19th September, 2026.
( yogesh )
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes
Dr. Satish Chander Malhotra
Union of India
Ajay Mohan Goel
Yogesh Jaswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
