_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 6040 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_______________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 26 May, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.71 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajesh Singh .......Petitioner Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram:

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

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Bir Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol 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, prayer has been

made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the

respondents to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated

27.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA

No.5600 of 2019, titled Rajesh Singh vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh and others.

2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to

have been violated, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,

while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider

and decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of six

weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful,

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

as taken note hereinabove, respondents failed to do the needful,

petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,

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 two 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 proceedings alive and accordingly, same are closed

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

judgment/order dated 27.11.2024, positively within a period of two

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 26,2025 (shankar)