In execution petition No. 81 of 2017, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of the petition as respondents complied with directions from a prior judgment by disbursing the amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Execution Petition No. 81 of 2017 Decided on: September 20, 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sanjay Singh …………….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ……….Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. Anup Rattan and Mr. Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral):
Respondents have issued communication dated 25.8.2017 (Annexure R1) and thereafter, disbursed the amount vide Annexure R2. In view of this, in our considered view, directions contained in judgment dated 11.4.2012 passed in CWP No. 9705 of 2012 titled Sanjay Singh vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh and others and connected matters (Annexure P-1), stand complied with.
(Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge
(vikrant)
September 20, 2017
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? .
Sanjay Singh
State of Himachal Pradesh
Sanjay Karol
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
