The petitioner's counsel submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous due to subsequent developments. The High Court dismissed the petition on these grounds.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Civil Writ Petition No. 6996 of 2026 Date of Decision: 15.09.2026
Sukh Dev Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others …....Respondents Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4/State. Mr. Surender Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of subsequent developments, the petition has been rendered infructuous.
(Ajay Mohan Goel), Judge
(Yogesh Jaswal), Judge
September 15, 2026 Rajeev Raturi
Sukh Dev Sharma
State of H.P.
Ajay Mohan Goel
Yogesh Jaswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
