GIRJA NAND(Not Applicable) vs THE HRTC AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) — CWP/3688/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010133132026

Filing Number

CWP/11448/2026

Filing Date

17-Mar-2026

Registration No

CWP/3688/2026

Registration Date

24-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 13-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GIRJA NAND(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Surinder Kumar Saklani

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE HRTC AND OTHERS(Not Applicable)

    Adv. ,Dheeraj Kumar Vashishat 1123

  2. 2.Divisional Manager(Not Applicable)

  3. 3.Regional Manager Himachal Road Transport Corporation Dharampur Unit(Not Applicable)

  4. 4.Regional Manager Himachal Road Transport Corporation Kinnaur at Reckong Peo(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan GoelView PDF

    The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of the writ petition without adjudicating the merits, directing the competent authority to decide the petitioner Girja Nand's representation (Annexure P-5) within 12 weeks by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. The court accepted the petitioner's counsel's submission that disposing of the case with directions to decide the pending representation would serve the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Office Objection

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/3688/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of the writ petition without adjudicating the merits, directing the competent authority to decide the petitioner Girja Nand's representation (Annexure P-5) within 12 weeks by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. The court accepted the petitioner's counsel's submission that disposing of the case with directions to decide the pending representation would serve the interests of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case