1 2026:HHC:36029 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10213 of 2026 Decided on: 25.08.2026 Arpitansh Pathak …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner was selected and admitted in Sports Hostel, Bilaspur on 07.06.2024 as an athelete. He is currently pursuing studies in class 10+2 at school located in Bilaspur, H.P. Petitioner’s grievance is to the decision taken by the respondents on 16.06.2026 (Annexure P-3) whereby on account of poor performance, he has been ordered to be weeded out of State Sports Hostel, Bilaspur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:36029 3. The case record reflects that petitioner had preferred a representation/ complaint against his coach on 19.05.2025 (Annexure R-J) appended with the rejoinder. It appears that petitioner’s coach had also lodged his own grievance against the petitioner to the District Youth Services & Sport Officer on 15.05.2025 (Annexure R-4). Scheme for running sports hostel in the respondent- State by the Department of Youth Services & Sports (Annexure P-4) provides following procedure for weeding out sports persons from the sports hostel:- “(6) Weeding out:- The performance of each player will be reviewed annually if any sports persons fails to maintain or achieve the required standard within a stipulated period of one year will be weeded out by screening committee to be constituted by the Department for the purpose and new induction will be made in his/ her place. The outstanding players can remain in the hostels till their educational qualification completed or 24 years of age whichever is earlier.” It is pursuant to aforesaid provision that petitioner on account of his alleged poor performance was weeded out from the sports hostel on 16.06.2026. Several grounds have been taken for the petitioner for assailing his weeding out viz. impugned decision having been taken mid-academic session, non 3 2026:HHC:36029 review of petitioner’s assessment annually during calendar financial year and alleged bias of the coach of the petitioner against him. Similarly, several grounds have been putforth by the respondents defending petitioner’s weeding out more prominently on account of his very poor performance in sports and his alleged undisciplined behaviour. These aspects are not being deliberated in this writ petition. The writ records shows that despite the petitioner levelling allegations against his coach and petitioner’s coach levelling his own allegations against the petitioner, the respondents had formed the Committee for weeding out sports persons from Sports hostel on 01.04.2026 (Annexure R-2) wherein for field of athletics, petitioner’s coach in question was also the Member of the Committee. It is this Committee which ultimately weeded out the petitioner on 16.06.2026. 4. It is well settled that no one can be judged in his own cause. One of the basic element of fair hearing is ‘nemo judex in cause sua’ and also that ‘Justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done’. It would be appropriate to refer to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Canara Bank and 4 2026:HHC:36029 others Versus Debasis Das and others2, wherein basic legal principles were reiterated as under:- “21. How then have the principles of natural justice been interpreted in the Courts and within what limits are they to be confined? Over the years by a process of judicial interpretation two rules have been evolved as representing the principles of natural justice in judicial process, including therein quasi judicial and administrative process. They constitute the basic elements of a fair hearing, having their roots in the innate sense of man for fair-play and justice which is not the preserve of any particular race or country but is shared in common by all men. The first rule is “nemo judex in causa sua” or “nemo debet esse judex in propria causa sua” as stated in Earl of Derby’s case3 that is, “no man shall be a judge in his own cause”. Coke used the form “aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa quia non potest esse judex at pars” (Co.Litt. 1418), that is, “no man ought to be a judge in his own case, because he cannot act as Judge and at the same time be a party”. The form “nemo potest esse simul actor et judex”, that is, “no one can be at once suitor and judge” is also at times used. The second rule is “audi alteram partem”, that is, “hear the other side”. At times and particularly in continental countries, the form “audietur at altera pars” is used, meaning very much the same thing. A corollary has been deduced from the above two rules and particularly the audi alteram partem rule, namely “qui aliquid statuerit parte inaudita alteram actquam licet dixerit, haud acquum facerit” that is, “he who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right, will not have been what is right” (See Bosewell’s case (1605) 6 Co.Rep. 48-b, 52-a) or in other words, as it is now expressed, “justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done”. Whenever an order is struck down as invalid being in violation of principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and fresh proceedings are left upon. All that is done is to vacate the order 2(2003) 4 SCC 557. 3(1605) 12 CO Re 114. 5 2026:HHC:36029 assailed by virtue of its inherent defect, but the proceedings are not terminated.” There being allegations against the coach of the petitioner levelled by the petitioner and counter allegations by the coach, the said coach should not have been member of the Committee constituted for the purpose of weeding out. For that reason alone, the impugned order dated 16.06.2026 qua the petitioner is quashed and set-aside. The respondents shall be at liberty to form fresh Committee in accordance with law for evaluating the performance of the petitioner in terms of the applicable schemes/ guidelines/ instructions. Ordered accordingly. Fresh exercise be undertaken in accordance with law within three weeks. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 25, 2026 Judge yogesh