Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mool Raj vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 25 August, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No.1288 of 2025
Date of Decision: 25.08.2025
_______________________________________________________
.
Mool Raj .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr.
Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar
Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been
made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the
respondents for implementation and execution of the order/judgment
dated 26.05.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No.4369 of 2025,
titled as Mool Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be
executed in the present proceedings, reveals that this Court, while
disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the
respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light
of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 165 of
2021, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Surajmani and others. within four weeks. Since, despite there being
specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above,
.
respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioner has
approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 orders, sought to be executed, must have been complied
with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of three
weeks from today.
4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given 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,
positively within a period of three weeks from today, 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
August 25, 2025
(sunil)
