Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2004/2026 of AMBIKA PRASAD Vs THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER on 11 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2004 of 2026 Date of Decision: 11.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ambika Prasad …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & 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.2004 of 2026 Date of Decision: 11.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ambika Prasad
…….Petitioner
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikrant, 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 petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 27.02.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.159 of 2025, titled as Ambika Prasad and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-3) within six weeks. Since, despite there
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
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.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 11, 2026 (sunil)