Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2094/2026 of ASHOK KUMAR Vs HRTC AND ANR on 17 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2094 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Ashok Kumar …….Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. … 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.2094 of 2026 Date of Decision: 17.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Ashok Kumar
…….Petitioner
Versus HRTC & Anr.
… Respondents _______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 17.03.2026 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.8324 of 2021, titled as Ashok Kumar Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another, whereby afore petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed in CWPOA No. 5730 of 2020 titled as Hem Chand Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, along-with other connected. 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.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
3. Mr. Rahul Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents, 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 counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful, positively within a period of three weeks, 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.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 17, 2026 (sunil)