Himachal Pradesh High Court
EX.P./2449/2026 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.
2026:HHC:44722
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Ex. Petition No. 2449 of 2026
Date of decision: 12.10.2026. Sunl Dutt
...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. Sanjeev Mankotia, Advocate vice Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 5.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge:
Petitioner has come up before this Court, seeking execution and implementation of the order/judgment dated 01.09.2025 [Annexure P-1], passed in CWP No. 14070 of 2025, titled as Sunil Dutt versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, had passed the following orders:- “5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the observation that let appropriate action on the complaints of the petitioner be taken by the
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
Authorities, within a period of three months from today. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation with regard to the correctness of the allegations levelled by the petitioner and complaints be dispassionately gone into by the Authorities, in accordance with law, by adhering to the principles of natural justice. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly”.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had submitted a Representation on 13.09.2025 [Annexure P-2], requesting the respondents to implement the order. It is further submitted that in response to the representation Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, has forwarded the case to Sub-Divisional Officer [Civil] Bilaspur and Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division No.2, Bilaspur for implementing the judgment in letter and spirit but nothing has been done as yet.
3. Heard.
4. Notice. Mr. Gautam Sood, Learned Deputy Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5.
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 State Counsel also.
7. Considering the matter in above perspective and the statement made by Learned Counsel for petitioner, instant petition is closed, with directions to the Respondents to implement the order/judgment within six weeks.
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 12, 2026. (kck)