Disposed

Jyoti Prakash v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Sept 2020EX.PT/219/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this execution petition, the petitioner sought implementation of an HP State Administrative Tribunal order. The respondent's counsel assured action within two weeks. The court disposed of the petition with a direction to respondents to comply within two weeks or face revival of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to implement the executed judgment within two weeks, failing which the petitioner may revive the petition.

Jyoti Prakash Vs State of Hp — Execution and Attachment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No.219 of 2020 Date of Decision: 4.9.2020

¶3

_______________________________________________________ Sh. Jyoti Prakash …...Petitioner. Versus State of HP and Anr. ....Respondents.

¶4

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting¹ ? For the petitioner: Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Arvind Sharma, Additional Advocates General.

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 1.1.2019, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 6900 of 2018, whereby the Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by the learned counsel for the applicant that his case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 21.4.2010, passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 5253 of 2008, titled Narain Singh v. State of HP and Ors , further modified by the Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 1.9.2015 in LPA No. 146 of 2010, State of HP and Ors v. Narain Singh , directed the respondents to extend the benefit of aforesaid judgment to the applicant, if he is found to be similarly situate, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the

¶7

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

¶9

order. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents towards implementation of the aforesaid judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶10

2. Learned Additional Advocate General states that though he has every reason to presume that by now, order/judgment alleged to have been not implemented, must have been implemented in its totality, but if not, needful shall be positively done within a period of two weeks.

¶11

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned

¶12

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 sought to be executed, within a period of two weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to

¶13

get the present petition revived so that appropriate action towards implementation and execution of the judgment is taken.

¶14

4^th September, 2020 ( Sandeep Sharma ), manjit Judge.

Jyoti Prakash v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Prakash v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Vs State of Hp

Suresh Kumar Vs Kamaljit Thakur and Others

Mast Ram Vs Fullan Devi

Kamal Husain Vs State of Hp

Bheem Ram Vs State of Hp and Anr.

The Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Veena Rana and Others