Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2554/2025 of HARI KRISHAN SHANDIL Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 30 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2554 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Hari Krishan Shandil ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No.2554 of 2026
Date of Decision: 30.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Hari Krishan Shandil
……...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. Sohail Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
While placing on record communication dated 19.09.2026 issued under the signature of Under Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith copy of communication dated 19.9.2026 thereby intimating the office of Advocate General that sum of Rs. 1,00,204/- has been sanctioned and made available to the office concerned for clearance of arrears of the petitioner in compliance of judgment passed by this Court, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed stands duly
2 complied with, which fact has been duly acknowledged by learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Having perused the aforesaid communication, this Court finds that mandate contained in judgment sought to be executed stands complied with, as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly, present petition is disposed of. Respondent Department would be at liberty to initiate recovery, if any, for the amount, if any, paid in excess.
September 30, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge