Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 114 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 121

Nominal Index:

State of H.P. v/s Anu Bala & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 114

Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sen & Others v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 115

Punam Gupta and another v/s State of H.P. & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 116

State of H.P. V/s Nitya Nand & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 117

V (a juvenile) v/s State of H.P.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 118

Sh. Mukhtyar Singh V/s Gyan Singh & Others.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 119

A.Aditya & others v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 120

Salman Khan v/s State of H.P. & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 121

HP High Court Denies Relief To Cops Accused Of Outraging Woman's Modesty, Says State Can't Protect Them From Probe By Filing Revision Plea

Case Name: State of H.P. v/s Anu Bala & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 114

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the State cannot challenge a court's direction for investigation merely because the proposed accused are government servants.

The Court emphasised that, as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India, every individual is entitled to equality before law or the equal protection of the laws. Thus, the Court held that “the State cannot discriminate between the Government employees and ordinary citizens by protecting a person against whom an offence has been alleged and investigation has been directed”.

Dismissing the Criminal revision petition filed by the State, Justice Virender Singh observed that: “Merely, since, the proposed accused persons are Government servants, will not give an authority to the State to assail the order, passed by the learned trial Court, against the proposed accused persons, by way of filing the Criminal Revision, before this Court”.

Providing Sewerage Connections Is Statutory Duty Of Municipal Council, Consent Of Property Owners Not Required: HP High Court

Case Name: Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sen & Others v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 115

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that under Section 141 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1994, it is the duty of the Municipal Council to provide sewerage connections, and it cannot withhold this service merely due to objections from private landowners.

Rejecting the contention of Municipal Council, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel held that: “There is no statutory requirement that the Council has to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the person from whose property the sewerage line is to pass. In case, Section 141 of the Act is interpreted as such, then the Municipal Authorities would not be able to provide majority of the residents' sewerage connection and the Section will become otiose.”

HP High Court Declares S. 163-A HP Land Revenue Act As Unconstitutional; Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Govt Land By Feb 28, 2026

Case Name: Punam Gupta and another v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 116

In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Tuesday (August 5) declared  Section 163-A of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1952, which empowered the State Government to frame rules for regularisation of encroachments on government land, as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

In its order, a Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Bipin Chander Negi observed that the impugned provision is a 'legislation for a class of dishonest persons' which seeks to regularize all illegal encroachments, and thus, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

State Can't Recover Overpaid Salaries After 5 Yrs, In Absence Of Misrepresentation From Workers: HP High Court Aids Class-III Workers

Case Name: State of H.P. V/s Nitya Nand & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 117

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed 36 LPAs filed by the state, holding that the recovery of overpaid salaries after 5 years cannot be made from class-III workers, when there was no misrepresentation on the part of the workers.

Upholding the finding of the Single bench, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia & Justice Ranjan Sharma held that: “since the petitioners are Class-III employees and the recovery sought to be effected, pertains to the amount erroneously paid to them more than five years ago, the same is impermissible in law.”

Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds JJB's Decision To Try 16-Yr-Old As An Adult For Alleged Rape Of 7-Yr-Old Girl

Case Name: V (a juvenile) v/s State of H.P.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 118

In the alleged rape of a 7 year old girl by a 16 year old boy, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that preliminary assessment conducted by the Medical Board in accordance with Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015 found that that the accused had an IQ of 92 and was fully aware of the consequences of his acts as he had threatened the victim and told her to not disclose the incident to anyone.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that “ the Medical Board was to assess the mental capacity of petitioner, which it had assessed and found the petitioner's IQ to be 92; therefore, the mere fact that the documents were not forwarded to the Medical Board cannot lead to an interference that the report issues by the Medical Board was bad."

Order 7 Rule 14 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Seek Production Of Documents That Inadvertently Remained In Counsel's Brief: HP High Court

Case Name: Sh. Mukhtyar Singh V/s Gyan Singh & Others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 119

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the plea that documents were inadvertently left in the counsel's brief is not a valid ground to invoke the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Rejecting the Contention of the Petitioner Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “These pleas are no reasons to invoke the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These provisions have been provided in the Statute to advance the cause of justice and not to throttle the wheel of justice as apparently is the intent of the petitioner.”

Beas River Tragedy | HP High Court Upholds Criminal Negligence Charges Against Faculty Members Over Death Of Students On College Trip

Case Name: A.Aditya & others v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 120

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by the faculty members of VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering and Technology, over the death of several students on a college trip in the Beas River tragedy, holding that the faculty members were fully aware that the students were likely to die, yet they did not stop the students from entering the riverbed.

Justice Virender Singh noted that: “The alleged rash and negligent act of the accused is causa causans of the incident, which has rightly been held to be the question of law and facts, by the learned trial Court which will be proved during the course of trial.”

HP High Court Directs Police To Consider Protection Plea By Young Muslim Couple, Including Minor Girl, Over Threats Faced Due To Marriage

Case Name: Salman Khan v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 121

The Himachal Pradesh High Court division bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia & Justice Ranjan Sharma has directed the Superintendent of Police, Sirmaur, and the Station House Officer concerned to consider protection request of the 20-year-old petitioner and his 17 year old wife and take appropriate action after they got married without their family's permission.

The court relied on the Supreme Court case of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P., 2006, which protects the right of consenting individuals to marry and live together without unlawful interference.