Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2463/2026 on 13 October 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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 PRADSH AT SHIMLA
Ex. Petition No. 2463 of 2026 Decided on: 13.10.2026. ___________________________________________________________ Yudhishthir Kapta
....Petitioner Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ....Respondents
Coram :
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Mr. Yogesh K. Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________________ Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Petitioner has come up before this Court, seeking execution/implementation of the order/judgment dated 29.12.2025 [Annexure P-1], passed in CWP No. 20534 of 2025, titled as Yudhishthir Kapta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, had passed the following orders:- “4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 ( 2026:HHC:45087 )
authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Inder Singh Thakur within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.”
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent-Competent Authority has neither decided the representation of the petitioner nor any speaking order has been conveyed as yet.
3. Heard.
4. Notice. Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
5. At this stage, Learned Counsel submits that petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, the Respondent- Competent Authority decide the case of the petitioner in a time bound manner. [Statement taken on record]
6. Considering the matter in above perspective, this Court directs the Respondent/Competent Authority to decide the matter in terms of the order/judgment within six weeks positively.
3 ( 2026:HHC:45087 )
7. Needless to say, that in case, the decision is not taken in terms of this order/judgment, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy hereinafter, in accordance with law.
8. In aforesaid terms, instant petition and all the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
October 13, 2026 (Anita)