Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2464/2026 on 14 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No.2464 of 2026
Date of Decision: 14.10.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates 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 petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 26.9.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No. 15603 of 2025, titled as Nisha Joshi and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondent/competent authority to consider and decide case of the petitioners in light of judgment dated 7.4.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4830of 2023, titled as Inder Singh Thakur and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. (along with connected matter), within a period of four High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:16:04 :::CIS
2 weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, 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 three weeks from today.
3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the 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 three 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.
October 14, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:16:04 :::CIS