Himachal Pradesh High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 20, 2025 To October 26, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 196 to 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 201

Nominal Index:

Kashmir Chand Shadyal v/s State of H.P. and others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 196

Kamli and others v/s Boby Chauhan & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 197

Padam Sharma & Ors. v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 198

Pushpa Devi v/s State of Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 199

Mahender Singh v/s Union of India & others., 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 200

M/s Greenko Astha Projects (India) Hydro Power Pvt. Limited v/s Directorate of Energy, State Agency, Himachal Pradesh.,2025 LiveLaw (HP) 201

Appropriation Of Temple Donations Betrays Devotees' Trust: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Kashmir Chand Shadyal v/s State of H.P. and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 196

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that devotees donate money to temples with the belief that the donation will take care of the deities and will help maintain temple spaces.

The Court remarked that “Every rupee of temple funds must be used for the temple's religious purpose or dharmic charity… It cannot be treated like general revenue for the State or general public exchequer… nor diverted to any welfare schemes of the Government.”

MV Act | Registered Owner Liable In Accident Cases Until Legal Transfer Of Vehicle Is Completed: HP High Court

Case Name: Kamli and others v/s Boby Chauhan & others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 197

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a registered vehicle owner remains legally liable for an accident until ownership is formally transferred under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, even if a sale agreement had been executed prior to the accident.

The Court reiterated that: “Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that where ownership of any motor vehicle registered under the MV Act is transferred, transferor shall have to report the fact of transfer to Registration Authority within 14 days and Transferee shall report within 30 days thereafter.”

Right To Worship At Temple Cannot Be Curtailed; State Must Balance Faith And Public Order: HP High Court

Case Name: Padam Sharma & Ors. v/s State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 198

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that prohibiting entire communities from worshipping at their deity's temple violates their constitutional right to freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26.

The Court stated that such rights can only be restricted on grounds of public order, morality, or health, and that too through reasonable and proportionate measures.

The Court remarked that: “Illegal acts of a handful of people cannot be ground to take away the right of freedom, profess, practice and propagate religion of public at large.”

Himachal Pradesh High Court Declines Anticipatory Bail To Woman Accused Of Confining, Beating Scheduled Caste Boy For Touching Her House

Case Name: Pushpa Devi v/s State of Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 199

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a woman who was accused of confining and beating the deceased child because he belonged to a schedule caste and had touched her house.

She also allegedly demanded a sacrificial goat for purification of her house.The Court noted that such conduct of the accused was clearly motivated by caste-based discrimination.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “A prima facie reading of the status report and F.I.R. shows that the accused had given beatings to the deceased (a member of the scheduled caste) because the deceased happened to touch the house of the accused, and she wanted a sacrificial goat for purification. Hence, the offence was committed because of the caste of the deceased.”

Dismissal Of Border Police Constable For Absence Due To Illness Is “Harsh & Unjustified”: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case Name: Mahender Singh v/s Union of India & others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 200

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the dismissal of an Indo-Tibetan Border Police constable for alleged desertion was arbitrary and disproportionate, particularly when his absence was due to medical reasons and he had served the force with an unblemished record for over 18 years.

Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “The petitioner had rendered over 18 years of unblemished service and had repeatedly apprised the authorities of his illness; hence, the Court found his dismissal to be harsh and totally uncalled for.”

State Energy Directorate Can't Reject Accreditation For Renewable Energy Certificates, Only Central Agency Has Authority: HP High Court

Case Name: M/s Greenko Astha Projects (India) Hydro Power Pvt. Limited v/s Directorate of Energy, State Agency, Himachal Pradesh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 201

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the Directorate of Energy does not have jurisdiction to reject an application for accreditation under the Renewable Energy certificate mechanism, as such decisions fall within the exclusive domain of the central agency designated by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel remarked that: “Whether or not a generating company engaged in generation of electricity from renewable energy sources is eligible to apply for registration… has to be decided by the Central Agency and not by the State Agency.”