Disposed

Hari Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Jul 2021EX.PT/77/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an execution petition filed under Rule 16 of Himachal Pradesh High Court Original Writ Rules, 1997, the petitioner sought implementation of an HP Administrative Tribunal order. The Additional Advocate General stated that the order would be complied with within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to do the needful within two weeks, failing which the petition is liable to be revived.

Hari Singh Vs State of Hp and Others — Execution and Attachment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition(T) No. 77 of 2021 Decided on: July 8, 2021

¶3

_____________________ Hari Singh State of Himachal Pra	____________________________ . Versus desh and others …R	___________ ..Petitioner espondents
_____________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Whether approved f	____________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge. or reporting¹?	___________
_____________________ For the petitioner:	____________________________ Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.	___________
For the respondents:	Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar Arvind Sharma, Advocates General with Thakur, Deputy Advocate	and Mr. Additional Mr. Kunal General.
_____________________ Sandeep Sharma, J.	____________________________ (Oral)	___________

¶4

By way of instant petition filed under Rule 16 of Himachal Pradesh High Court Original Writ Rules, 1997, prayer has been made for implementation of order dated 25.4.2018 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA(D) No. 99 of 2018, titled Hari Singh vs. The State of H.P. 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 8.3.2018 rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, Sunder Singh vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh and

¶5

others and connected matters, disposed of the Original

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

Application with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, subject to verification that he is similarly situate to the persons in the order (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.

¶9

2. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notices on behalf of the respondents, stated that though he 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.

¶10

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand taken by learned Additional Advocate General, 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.

¶11

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶12

July 8, 2021 (Vikrant)

Hari Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

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

Mohar Singh Vs Hrtc and Ors.

Akhilesh Jain Vs Food Corporation of India