Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2500/2026 on 27 October 2026
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.
2026:HHC:46838
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Ex. Petition No. 2500 of 2026
Date of decision: 27.10.2026. Shyam Prakash
...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & another
...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Azmat Hayat Khan, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge:
Petitioner has come up before this Court, seeking execution/implementation of the order/judgment dated 12.03.2026 [Annexure E-1], passed in CWP No. 1978 of 2026, titled as Shyam Prakash vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another, whereby, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, had passed the following orders:- “3. This petition, accordingly, as prayed for, is disposed of with the direction that let representation of the petitioner be decided, in the light of the averments made therein as well as the
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes judgment being relied upon by the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks by the Competent Authority. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any view on the merits of the case and the representation shall be decided by the Authority independently without being influenced by any observation made by this Court in this regard.”
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the order/judgment [Annexure E-1], the petitioner had submitted a representation [Annexure E-2], requesting the respondents to implement the judgment but nothing has been done till today.
3. Heard.
4. Notice. Rahul Gathania, Advocate, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
5. At this stage, Learned Counsel, on Instructions, states that petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, Respondents are directed to implement the order/judgment in a time bound manner. [Statement Taken On Record].
6. Considering the matter in above perspective instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the Respondents-Competent Authority to implement the order/judgment, within a period of six weeks, from today.
7. In case, any grievance still remains, petitioner may seek appropriate remedy, hereinafter, in accordance with law.
8. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition stands disposed of, alongwith pending applications, if any.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge October 27, 2026. (kck)