Himachal Pradesh High Court
_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 16 May, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Ex.PT No. 441 of 2024
Date of Decision: 16.5.2024
_____________________________________________________________________
Leeladhar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.
Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 4.11.2023, passed in CWP No. 8489 of 2023, titled Leeladhar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the petition directed the respondents to consider representation of the petitioner in light of SLP within a period of six weeks.
Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2024 20:32:47 :::CIS 2 respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached .
this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while appearing and waiving notices 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 four weeks from today.
3. Consequently, in view of the 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 alleged to have been violated within a period of four 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.
May 16, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2024 20:32:47 :::CIS