2026:HHC:9057 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Review Petition No. 61 of 2025 Decided on: 20.03.2026 ____________________________________________________ Partap Singh (deceased) through LRs ……….. petitioners Versus Renuka Ji Dam Project, HPPCL and another ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Rohit Advocate. For the respondents : None for respondents No. 1 & 2. : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for respondent no.3/State. : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Arsh Chauhan and Mr. Prittam Singh Kanwar, Advocates. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) Review of order dated 1.3.2025 is primarily being sought on two grounds (a) show cause notice had been issued to Sh. Prittam Singh Kanwar, Advocate and his apology has not been accepted till date by the Court; (b) registration of FIR No. 64 of 2024 could not be made the basis for closing the case. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Insofar as the first plea is concerned, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant extract of the order dated 7th January, 2022. The same reads as follows:- 7. Having taken note of the serious allegations levelled against Mr Pritam Singh Kanwar, Advocate, this Court deems it fit to issue show cause notice to him, calling upon him to explain why appropriate action in accordance with law be not taken against him. Accordingly, Registry of this court is directed to issue show cause notice to Mr. Pritam Singh Kanwar, Advocate, specifically, calling upon him to remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing. List on 7.3.2022. 3. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that since serious allegations had been levelled against Mr. Prittam Singh Kanwar, Advocate, therefore, in compliance of rules of natural justice, show cause had been issued to him to explain as to why appropriate action in accordance with law be not taken against him. The show cause notice issued has been perused. In the same, gist of the allegation made as recorded in the order dated 7.1.2022 have been reproduced. The response filed in pursuance thereto is at Page 274 of the paper book, the same had been registered as CMP No. 59 of 2022. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is sought to be projected that contempt proceedings had been initiated against Mr. Prittam Singh Kanwar, Advocate, & hence, it is contended that the same could be closed only after accepting or rejecting the apology tendered. From the record, it is evident that no contempt 3 proceedings had been initiated by this Court against Mr. Prittam Singh Kanwar, Advocate. All that he had been asked by the show cause was to explain why appropriate action in accordance with law be not taken against him in view of the serious allegations levelled. Hence, the plea in this respect is misplaced. 5. Insofar as the 2nd plea is concerned, suffice it to state that the SIT in the case at hand was constituted vide order dated 22nd August, 2022. Vide the said order, the SIT was to conduct the investigation and complete the same within two months and thereafter submit a report to the Court in a sealed cover. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, subsequent orders were passed. The investigation report was filed by the SIT on 24.3.2023. 6. From a perusal of the order dated 24.7.2024 passed in CMP No. 34 of 2022, it is evident that the Special Investigation Team was free to proceed in accordance with law. While disposing of the aforesaid CMP, Mr. M.P. Kanwar, Advocate, was also permitted to have recourse to law insofar as his grievances qua initiating appropriate preliminary proceedings against those concerned. 7. Vide order dated 26.7.2024, a compliance report with respect to action taken on the basis of the SIT report was solicited. In pursuance of the said order, a status report was filed 4 by the SIT, whereupon the following order was passed on 16.10.2024:- “In pursuance to the previous order, status report has been filed by the respondent/State. The same Is taken on record. Copy whereof has been supplied to the parties. In the case at hand, in pursuance to order dated 22.08.2022, a status report has been filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT). From a perusal of the same, it is evident that no role of any broker was found during the investigation. Other than the aforesaid, as per the said report no illegal role of revenue officials were found in the case at hand. However, in the said report so filed a mention was made of FIR No.16/2022 dated 21.02.2022 under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B IPC registered against Advocate Pritam Singh Kanwar. In the same, allegations of involvement of bank officials with the said Advocate had been made. Conspicuous by absence in the status report filed today is a mention of the stage at which proceedings w.r.t. FIR No.16/2022 dated 21.02.2022 stand as on date. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that a fresh status report shall be placed on record, detailing the status qua the FIR No.16/2022 dated 21.02.2022.” 8. Previously, vide order dated 30.9.2024, SIT was required to file a compliance report. It is in furtherance whereof that at Page 428 of the paper book that compliance report was filed, wherein a mention was made of FIR No. 64 of 2024 dated 9.10.2024 registered under Section 420 of the IPC against Mr. Prittam Singh Kanwar, Advocate, on the complaint of Mr. Madan Pal Kumar, Advocate. 5 9. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the proceedings were ordered to be closed on 1.3.2025, on account of the registration of the aforesaid two FIRs and the investigation being conducted thereupon. In my considered opinion, there exists no reason to review order dated 1.3.2025. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 20th March, 2026 tarun