Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./1999/2026 of SUMAN BALA Vs STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER on 7 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1999 of 2026 Date of Decision: 7.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Suman Bala and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram
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.1999 of 2026
Date of Decision: 7.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Suman Bala and Ors.
……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioners for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 28.6.2024, passed by this Court in CWP No.5925 of 2024, titled Ravinder Kumar and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide representations of the petitioners within a period of four weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the
2 behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment sought to be executed, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of two weeks from today.
3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, failing which petitioners would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment. September 7, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge