Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4724 (HP)

DEEPAK CHAND v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/4441/2026 · 2026-05-05

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4441 of 2026 Decided on: 05.05.2026 Deepak Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing order dated 03.08.2024 passed by Deputy Commissioner- cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Rural Development Agency, District Sirmour at Nahan, H.P. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are as under:- “i. That a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the inquiry report dated 17.05.2024, order dated 03.08.2024 and order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the respondent authorities, being arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. ii. That a writ in the nature of Mandamus be passed directing the respondents to conduct a fresh, fair and time-bound inquiry into the allegations of misappropriation and embezzlement of public funds relating to Gram Panchayat, Dahar through an independent authority and consequently the respondents No. 4 and 5 be given a proportionate penalty for their misconducts. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 iii. That the respondent authorities be directed to undertake technical and financial verification of the sanctioned work, including examination of muster rolls, vouchers, utilization certificates, measurement books and physical inspection of the work site of the Gram Panchayat, Dahar.” 2. After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition as the petitioner intends to avail remedy as may be available to him in law for redressal of his grievances urged in this writ petition. 3. In view of above, petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. The period spent in this writ petition shall not be computed towards limitation. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 05, 2026 Judge yogesh