Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2436/2026 on 12 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.2436 of 2026 Date of Decision: 12.10.2026 _______________________________________________________ Minakshi Devi
…….Petitioner
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 28.08.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.13867 of 2025, titled as Minakshi Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others.
2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) in light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4830 of 2023, titled as Inder Singh
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:37:33 :::CIS
Thakur and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others within six weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid orders, sought to be executed, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of two weeks from today.
4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful, positively within a period of two weeks from today, if not already done, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge October 12, 2026 (sunil)
High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:37:33 :::CIS