Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2495/2026 on 15 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:45712
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Ex. Petition No. 2495 of 2026
Date of decision: 15.10.2026. Matber Singh
...Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. & others
...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge:
Petitioner has come up before this Court, seeking execution and implementation of the order/judgment dated 21.06.2024 [Annexure E-1], passed in CWP No. 5369 of 2024, titled as Matber Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following orders:- “3. In the event of filing such representation within a period of four weeks from today, the
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes same be decided within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt thereof in the light of the averments made in the petition”.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the order dated 21.06.2024, petitioner has submitted a representation on 03.11.2025 [Annexure E-2], but the same has not been decided by the Respondents-Competent Authority, as yet.
3. Heard.
4. Notice. Mr. Varun Chandel, Learned Additional Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.3.
5. At this stage, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, 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. Prayer, being innocuous, is not opposed by Learned Counsels for Respondents also.
7. 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.
8. In case, any grievance still remains, the petitioner may seek appropriate remedy, hereinafter, in accordance with law.
9. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition stands disposed of, alongwith pending applications, if any.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge October 15, 2026. (kck)