Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./1938/2025 of RAM KRISHAN Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 31 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1938 of 2025 Date of Decision: 31.08.2026 _______________________________________________________ Ram Krishan …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … 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.1938 of 2025 Date of Decision: 31.08.2026 _______________________________________________________ Ram Krishan
…….Petitioner
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
… Respondents _______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Aashish Kumar, 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):
While placing on record communication dated 29.08.2026 issued under the signatures of Director Ayush, Himachal Pradesh, enclosing therewith communication dated 18.08.2026 addressed to Secretary (AYUSH) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that mandate contained in the judgement sought to be executed stands complied with.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Having carefully perused aforesaid documents, which are taken on record, this Court finds that pursuant to directions contained in the judgment sought to be executed, respondents, after having considered the case of the petitioner, have rejected the same. Since there was only direction to consider the case of the petitioner, no further orders are required to be passed.
3. In view of the above, present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge, if any, to order passed in purported compliance of the judgment sought to be executed. Demand draft of Rs.5,000 has been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner towards costs, in terms of order dated 5.08.2026.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge August 31, 2026 (sunil)