Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2029/2026 of SURAJ Vs STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS on 16 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2029 of 2026 Date of Decision: 16.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Suraj ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.
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.2029 of 2026
Date of Decision: 16.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Suraj ……...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. Karan Kapoor, 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 15.9.2026, issued under signatures of Director General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith copy of office order dated 15.9.2026, thereby rejecting the representation of petitioner, Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that since representation filed by petitioner has been considered and rejected, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings.
2
2. Having perused the aforesaid document taken on record, which is taken on record, this Court finds that mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed stands complied with, as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present proceedings and present petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge to order passed in purported compliance of the judgment sought to be executed, if so advised.
September 16, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge