Himachal Pradesh High Court
_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 3 June, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No. 565 of 2025
Date of Decision: 3.6.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Sh. Hari Krishan and Anr.
.........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General and Mr.
Pushpender Singh Jaswal, Additional Advocate
General with Mr. Sumit Sharma & Mr. Rahul
Thakur, Deputy Advocates General and Mr. Rajat
Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioners for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 24.12.2024, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 16087 of 2024, titled Hari Krishan and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide case of the petitioners in light of judgment dated 29.11.2024, rendered in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, Mohit Sharma and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and 2 Ors., within a period of four weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Pushpender Singh Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, 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.
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 three weeks, failing which petitioners would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment.
June 3, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge