Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chhangu Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 4 December, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 2423 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.12.2025 .
_______________________________________________________ Chhangu Ram .......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram:
of 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 with Mr. rt Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, 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 24.06.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 10075 of 2025, titled Chhangu Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2804 of 2012, titled as Sanjay Kumar & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:46:24 :::CIS 2others, decided on 24.04.2012, within a period of six weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note .
hereinabove, respondents have failed to do so, 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 of though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of three weeks from rt 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 order/judgment dated 24.06.2025 passed by this Court, positively within a period of three 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 December 04,2025 (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:46:24 :::CIS