Robin Kumar & Anr. vs . State & Ors. on 7 March, 2026

    0
    36
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Himachal Pradesh High Court

    Robin Kumar & Anr. vs . State & Ors. on 7 March, 2026

    Author: Sandeep Sharma

    Bench: Sandeep Sharma

    .

    Robin Kumar & Anr. Vs. State & Ors.

    SPONSORED

    CWP No. 11078/2011 a/w CWP No. 4105/2012 & CWP
    No.480/2013

    of
    CWP No.11078/2021

    07.03.2026 Present: Mr. Rakesh Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioners.

    rt
    Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional
    Advocates General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan Deputy
    Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant

    Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2.

    Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushal, Advocate, vice Mr. Nitin
    Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

    CWP No.4105/2012

    Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek

    Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

    Mr. Vijay K. Arora, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gourav and Ms.
    Ashtha Kohli, Advocates, for respondents No.2 & 3.

    Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional
    Advocates General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan Deputy
    Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant
    Advocate General, for respondents No. 4 & 5.

    Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushal, Advocate, vice Mr. Nitin
    Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 6 & 7.

    CWP No. 480/2013

    Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek
    Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

    Mr. Vijay K. Arora, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gourav and Ms.
    Ashtha Kohli, Advocates, for respondents No.2 & 3.

    Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional
    Advocates General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan Deputy
    Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant

    ::: Downloaded on – 07/03/2026 20:29:54 :::CIS
    .

    Advocate General, for respondents No. 4 & 5.

    Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushal, Advocate, vice Mr. Nitin
    Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 6 & 7.

    Head. Grievance of the petitioners, as highlighted by the

    of
    learned Senior Advocate, is against the development fund

    charge ordered to be collected by the respondents-Technical
    rt
    University from the institutions, which in turn is being collected

    by the institutions (petitioners) from the students.

    Learned counsel on the opposite side, more particularly

    for the respondents-Technical University as well as the

    respondents-State, seek time to obtain the latest instructions

    in this regard. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned for the day.

    Jyotsna Rewal Dua
    Judge
    7th March, 2026 (Rohit)

    ::: Downloaded on – 07/03/2026 20:29:54 :::CIS



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here