IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2458 of 2025 st Decided on 01 May 2025 Kashmir Singh Thakur …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr. K.S. Thakur, in person.

For the respondents: Mr. Nand Lal, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-.

a. “That the appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued and the letter (Annexure P-6) issued by respondent No.3 may very kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.

b. That respondent No.3 may kindly be burdened with heavy cost for demoralizing, defaming and harassing the petitioner in his professional career.

c. That respondent No.3 may also be burdened with heavy cost for ruining the professional career of petitioner by issuance of letter (Annexure P-6).”

2. The petitioner, in person submitted that in terms of notification (Annexure P-1), he was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution, appeals, revisions and other matters arising out of the cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge or until further orders, whichever is earlier. Thereafter, in terms of Annexure P-5, notification dated 16.10.2024, the petitioner was designated as a Senior Advocate by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. In terms of impugned Annexure P-6, a communication has been sent by Superintendent of Police & HOB CBI, ACB, Shimla to the petitioner on the subject “transfer of Appeals/Revisions/Writ Petitions/Cr. Misc. Petitions from pending in the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. at Shimla from Kashmir Singh Thakur Retainer Counsel for CBI to Sh. Janesh Mahajan, Retainer Counsel” to the effect that due to administrative reasons, the cases which were entrusted to the petitioner stood transfer to the other learned retainer counsel. Petitioner has submitted that, though, Annexure P-6 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, however, it be clarified that in the light of Annexure P-6 having been issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation and no order being there de-notifying the appointment of the petitioner a Special Public Prosecutor, notification in issue should not be construed as a bar in case he is engaged in his capacity as a Senior Advocate to fight or defend cases against Central Bureau of Investigation by instructing counsel.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, on instructions, submits that in the light of the fact that the petitioner is no more the retainer counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation or Special Public Prosecutor, therefore, obviously now there is no bar for him being engaged as a Senior Counsel to either institute cases against or defend cases relating to Central Bureau of Investigation.

4. In the light of the statement that has been made on behalf of learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, this Court is of the considered view that now as the apprehension of the petitioner stands addressed; no further order is required to be passed in this petition. The petition as agreed is closed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge May 01, 2025 (Vinod)