Disposed

Mohar Singh v. Hrtc and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Jul 2021EX.PT/147/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of an execution petition seeking implementation of a High Court order. The learned counsel for the respondents accepted the notices and undertook to comply within two weeks, leading the Court to dismiss the petition without keeping it alive for further action.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to respondents to implement the impugned order within two weeks.

Mohar Singh Vs Hrtc and Ors. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Himachal Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition(T) No. 147 of 2021 Decided on: July 8, 2021

¶3

____________________________________________________________ Mohar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents
____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting¹?
____________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate.
For the respondents: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Advocate.
___________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J.(Oral)_

¶4

By way of instant petition filed under Rules 16(I) to 16(VIII) of High Court Writ Rules and Orders, 1997 (as amended upto date), prayer has been made for implementation of order dated 27.3.2018 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1075 of 2018, titled Mohar Singh vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, whereby learned Tribunal, on the basis of statement made by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the case of petitioner is covered by judgment dated 7.7.2014 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3050/2014 , titled Nek Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others , disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, subject to verification that he is similarly

¶5

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

¶6

¶7

situate to the persons in the judgment supra, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. Since the respondents have failed to implement the order of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking implementation of the order passed by Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.

¶8

2. Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Advocate, while accepting notices on behalf of the respondents, stated that though she has reasons to believe that the order in question stands implemented, but if not, same would be complied with, within a period of two weeks.

¶9

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand taken by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of order (supra), within two weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived, so that appropriate steps towards execution of the order in question are taken. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶10

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶11

July 8, 2021 (Vikrant)

Mohar Singh v. Hrtc and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohar Singh v. Hrtc and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishwar Dutt Sharma Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Rangila Ram Vs State of Hp

Subhas Kayastha Vs State of Hp

Bl Kanwar Vs State of Hp

Akhilesh Jain Vs Food Corporation of India

Hari Singh Vs State of Hp and Others