Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2089/2026 of VEENA RANI Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 17 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2089 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Veena Rani & Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … 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.2089 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Veena Rani & Anr.
…….Petitioners
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
… Respondents _______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of 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 12.05.2026 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.5980 of 2026, titled as Veena Rani and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioners, directed
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
that representation made by the petitioners shall be decided by the competent authority in the light of averments made therein within twelve weeks by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 executed, must have been complied with, but if not, same would 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 the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful, positively within a period of three weeks from today, if not already done, failing which, petitioners 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.
List for compliance on 02.11.2026.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 17, 2026 (sunil)