Lalita vs State Of H.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 8354 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Lalita vs State Of H.P. And Another on 1 September, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                    Execution Petition No.1646 of 2025
                                           Date of Decision: 01.09.2025
    _____________________________________________________________________




                                                                  .

    Lalita                                                    .........Petitioner
                                               Versus
    State of H.P. and Another                                  .......Respondents





    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?
    For the Petitioner:        Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate.





    For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr.
                         Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.
                         Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr.
                         Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for
                    r    State.
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant execution petition, prayer has been

made on behalf of the petitioner for execution and implementation of

judgment dated 17.06.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.9653 of

2025, whereby this Court passed the following order:

"3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the

pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohit Sharma case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved."

2. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the

behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner

has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

.

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

while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, states that

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

order/judgment sought to be executed, must have been complied with

in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within

a period of three weeks from today.

4. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by the learned

Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep

present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with

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

sought to be executed, within a period of three weeks, failing which

petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that

appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards the

implementation of the order/judgment.

    September 01, 2025                                 (Sandeep Sharma),
         (Rajeev Raturi)                                    Judge