High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajender Kumar & Ors vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 10 November 2025 · Citation: (2025) 11 SHI CK 1863

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Execution Petition No.2200 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 312 words

Sandeep Sharma, J

1.

By way f instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for issuance of directions to the respondents for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 16.06.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.9605 of 2025, t tled as Rajender Kumar & others Vs. State of H.P. & another.

2.

Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioners, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.5043 of 2022, titled as Sunita Sangroli Vs. State of H.P and Others within four weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

3.

Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid orders, sought to be execu ed, must have been complied with, but if not, same wo ld be complied with within a period of three weeks from today.

4.

Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep t e present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful, pos t vely within a period of three weeks from today, 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.