SUBHADRA DEVI(Not Applicable) vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) — CWP/3714/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010154072026

Filing Number

CWP/13284/2026

Filing Date

24-Mar-2026

Registration No

CWP/3714/2026

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.SUBHADRA DEVI(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Naveen Negi,Devender Kumar,Devender Kumar, ,Devender Kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable)

    Adv. AG 1123

  2. 2.Director of Animal Husbandry to the govt. of Himachal Pradesh.(Not Applicable)

  3. 3.Deputy Director(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 ruling on merits, directing the competent authority to decide petitioner Subhadra Devi's representation (Annexure P-3) within 12 weeks by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. The court adopted this approach to serve the interests of justice, as the petitioner had already filed a representation with the Department regarding the issues raised. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Notice Before Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/3714/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of the writ petition without ruling on merits, directing the competent authority to decide petitioner Subhadra Devi's representation (Annexure P-3) within 12 weeks by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. The court adopted this approach to serve the interests of justice, as the petitioner had already filed a representation with the Department regarding the issues raised. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case