MANISH KUMAR(Not Applicable) vs HRTC(Not Applicable) Advocate - Vikas Rajput, ,Vikas Rajput — CWP/366/2020

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 20th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010044162020

Filing Number

CWP/4002/2020

Filing Date

16-Jan-2020

Registration No

CWP/366/2020

Registration Date

17-Jan-2020

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

20-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MANISH KUMAR(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Onkar Jairath,Shubham Sood,Shubham Sood, ,Shubham Sood

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HRTC(Not Applicable) Advocate - Vikas Rajput, ,Vikas Rajput

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal BhardwajView PDF

    The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed Manish Kumar's civil writ petition against HRTC as "not pressed" on 20th May, 2026, after the petitioner's counsel informed the court that due to intervening developments and passage of time, he had instructions not to pursue the petition further. All pending applications were also disposed of accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-May-2026

    Admission After Notice

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj

  4. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal BhardwajView PDF

  5. 12-Mar-2020

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan,hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop ChitkaraView PDF

  6. 12-Mar-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 17-Jan-2020

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan GoelView PDF

  8. 16-Jan-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/366/2020

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed Manish Kumar's civil writ petition against HRTC as "not pressed" on 20th May, 2026, after the petitioner's counsel informed the court that due to intervening developments and passage of time, he had instructions not to pursue the petition further. All pending applications were also disposed of accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case