VINOD ARORA AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable) vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) — CWP/6567/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010258162026

Filing Number

CWP/22448/2026

Filing Date

29-Apr-2026

Registration No

CWP/6567/2026

Registration Date

30-Apr-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

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VINOD ARORA AND ANOTHER(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Tarun Sharma

  2. 2.Suresh Arora(Not Applicable)

Respondent(s)

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

    Adv. AG 1123

  2. 2.The Chief Engineer, HPPWD, Mandi Zone,(Not Applicable)

  3. 3.The Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Mandi,(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal DuaView PDF

    Case Summary: CWP 6567/2026 The Himachal Pradesh High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the competent authorities to decide on a notice issued under the Road Infrastructure Protection Act, 2002 within four weeks. The petitioners had challenged a notice dated 02.08.2024 alleging contravention of road protection provisions, to which they had already filed a reply on 21.11.2024. The court found that since no final order had been passed on the notice, it directed the respondents to take a decision in accordance with law while considering the petitioners' reply. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    Office Objection

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

  4. 29-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/6567/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CWP 6567/2026 The Himachal Pradesh High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the competent authorities to decide on a notice issued under the Road Infrastructure Protection Act, 2002 within four weeks. The petitioners had challenged a notice dated 02.08.2024 alleging contravention of road protection provisions, to which they had already filed a reply on 21.11.2024. The court found that since no final order had been passed on the notice, it directed the respondents to take a decision in accordance with law while considering the petitioners' reply. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case