Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.PT/142/2026 on 13 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 (T) No.142 of 2026
Date of Decision: 13.10.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Arun Kumar Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, 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 6.10.2021, passed by this Court in CWPOA No.3634 of 2019, titled as Arun Kumar Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 4.9.2021, passed in CWPOA No. 3341 of 2019, titled as Madan Lal Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, within six weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:25:43 :::CIS
2 pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, 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 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 13, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:25:43 :::CIS