Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.PT/121/2026 of GOPAL CHAND Vs HRTC on 3 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.121 of 2026 Date of Decision: 3.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Gopal Chand ……...Petitioner Versus HRTC …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
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.121 of 2026
Date of Decision: 3.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Gopal Chand ……...Petitioner Versus HRTC
…....Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. V. S. Kanwar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 30.8.2025, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.3370 of 2020, titled Gopal Chand v. HRTC and Anr.., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondent/competent authority to consider case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 26.5.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 5730 of 2020, titled as Hem Chand v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation within four weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the
2 respondent pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. V.S. Kanwar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent, 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 learned counsel for the respondent, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondent to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, failing which petitioner 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 3, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge