The petitioner sought execution of a prior court order directing the State to decide his case based on a specific precedent. The Court noted the petitioner's rejection and disposed of the execution petition without examining the merits, reserving liberty to challenge the consideration order separately.
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, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No. 104 of 2024 Date of Decision: 06.03.2024
| Pardeep Kumar | ……...Petitioner | |
|---|---|---|
| Versus | ||
| State of HP & Ors. | …....Respondents |
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Mr. B.C Verma, & Mr. Vishal Parmar, Additional Advocate Generals and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents/ State.
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of direction to respondents for execution of judgment dated 22.09.2023 passed by this Court in CWP No. 6779 of 2023 titled Pardeep Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., whereby direction was issued to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of CWP No. 342 of 2021 titled
Yashwant Singh & Ors Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Decided on 31.08.2022.
2
communication dated 27.02.2024, states that the case of the petitioner was considered in light of Yashwant Singh's case supra, but the petitioner was not found to be similar situate to the case of Yashwant Singh's case supra and as such, his case has been rejected. Aforesaid communication is taken on record.
Though after having perused aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there is no consideration on the part of respondent, but correctness and merit in consideration order, if any, passed in compliance of judgment alleged to have been violated cannot be ascertained in the execution petition, which is otherwise meant for execution of the order passed by the competent Court of law. Correctness of consideration order, if any, can be ascertained in a substantive petition, if any, filed by the aggrieved party.
In view of above, present petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge to the consideration order.
March 6, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma), Sunil Judge
Pardeep Kumar
State of HP
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
