Smt. Jaimanti Devi vs State Of H.P. & Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 4976 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Smt. Jaimanti Devi vs State Of H.P. & Another on 2 May, 2024

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Execution Petition No.337 of 2024 Date of Decision: 02.05.2024

.

_______________________________________________________

Smt. Jaimanti Devi .......Petitioner Versus

State of H.P. & another ... Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1

For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and

Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate

Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

By way of instant Execution Petition filed under Rule 16

of the H.P. High Court Original Side Rules, prayer has been made on

behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to

implement/ execute the judgment dated 19.04.2023 passed by this

Court in CWP No.286 of 2021, titled as Smt. Jaimanti Devi versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment alleged to

have been violated, reveals that this Court having taken note of the

statement made by learned counsel representing the petitioner that

the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

8.01.2015 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP

No.3746 of 2011, titled as Prakash Chand and others vs. State of

.

Himachal Pradesh and another, disposed of the petition with a

direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the

petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. Since, despite there being

specific direction to do the needful, as taken note above, respondents

failed to grant the benefit to the petitioner in terms of aforesaid

judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant

proceedings.

3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate

General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states

that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now

aforesaid judgment/ order alleged to have been violated, must have

been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a

period of four weeks from today.

4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by

learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to

keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly

disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful in

terms of the judgment rendered in Prakash Chand's case(supra),

positively within a period of four weeks, if not already done, failing

which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings

revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken

towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed

.

in the instant proceedings.

                                                     (Sandeep Sharma),
                                                            Judge





    May 02, 2024
        (sunil)




                        r         to