SAHAB SINGH(Not Applicable) vs THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable) — CWP/6759/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010252732026

Filing Number

CWP/21985/2026

Filing Date

27-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/6759/2026

Registration Date

05-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Coram

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAHAB SINGH(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Karam Pal,Suraj Kumar,Suraj Kumar, ,Suraj Kumar

Respondent(s)

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

    Adv. ,Rahul Thakur,AG 1123

  2. 2.Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal DuaView PDF

    The High Court of Himachal Pradesh set aside the Appellate Authority's order dismissing Sahab Singh's appeal against a Rs. 1,00,000 environmental compensation imposed for illegal muck disposal in Sangti nullah. The court found that key facts—including the petitioner's claim of completing remedial work and undertaking urgent property protection measures—were not adequately considered and directed a fresh review of the appeal by the Appellate Authority within four weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Office Objection

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

  4. 27-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/6759/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh set aside the Appellate Authority's order dismissing Sahab Singh's appeal against a Rs. 1,00,000 environmental compensation imposed for illegal muck disposal in Sangti nullah. The court found that key facts—including the petitioner's claim of completing remedial work and undertaking urgent property protection measures—were not adequately considered and directed a fresh review of the appeal by the Appellate Authority within four weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case