Dismissed¶15

Balraj Kaundal v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Jun 2026CWP/9323/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, CWP No. 9323 of 2026, decided 10.06.2026 by Romesh Verma, Vacation Judge: writ petition against transfer allegedly founded on a UO Note dismissed as withdrawn after State communication dated 9 June 2026 revealed the petitioner was himself the beneficiary of the UO Note dated 27 October 2023 adjusting him as Divisional Engineer, Soil Conservation, Mandi at Bhangrotu; withdrawal permitted with liberty to file fresh; no statutory provisions or precedents discussed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh, if need so arises; pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶15

Balraj Kaundal Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 9323 of 2026

¶3

Date of Decision: 10.06.2026.

¶4

____________ ___________________________________________ Balraj Kaundal …….Petitioner. Versus State of HP and others … Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Vacation Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner:	Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. Suresh Saini, Advocate.
For the respondents: ____________________	Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Additional Advocate General. ___________________________________

¶8

Romesh Verma, Vacation Judge ( oral ):

¶9

The present writ petition was listed on 9^th June, 2026 when the respondent-State was directed to have the complete instructions in the matter.

¶10

Today, Mr. Sushant Kaprate, learned Additional Advocate General, has placed on record communication dated 9^th June, 2026, which reveals that though in the present writ petition, it has been alleged that the present petitioner has been ordered to be transferred on the basis of the UO Note, however, as per the instructions, the petitioner himself is the beneficiary of the UO Note dated 27^th October,

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

2023, whereby he was ordered to be adjusted in the office of Divisional Engineer, Soil Conservation, Mandi at Bhangrotu, District Mandi.

¶14

Faced with this situation, Mr. Mohar Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file fresh, if need so arises. Permission granted.

¶15

In view of above, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty, as aforesaid. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶16

(Romesh Verma), Vacation Judge

¶17

10^th June, 2026 (Guleria)

Balraj Kaundal v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balraj Kaundal v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Chauhan Vs State of Hp and Others

Jagatjit Singh Kohli Vs Ayana Rana and Ors.

Nilesh Patel Vs State of Hp

Parveen Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Balvinder Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Mamta Dhiman Vs State of Hp and Others