Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2325/2026 of RANJNA KUMARI Vs THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER on 28 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 2325 of 2026 Date of Decision: 28.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Ranjna Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents
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. 2325 of 2026 Date of Decision: 28.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Ranjna Kumari
…….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents ______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vipul Mehta, Advocate vice Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that needful in the case of the petitioner in terms of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 titlted Taj Mohammad and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, shall be done within a period of four months, as has been undertaken before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
2. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to ensure that needful in terms of the judgment, sought to be executed, is done expeditiously, preferably within a period for months, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 accordance with law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 28,2026 (shankar)