Dismissed¶27

Karnail Singh and Anr. v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Dec 2024EX.P./830/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HHC Execution Petition No.830 of 2024, Karnail Singh & others v. State of H.P. & others, decided 4.12.2024 by Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice (oral), with Satyen Vaidya, Judge — dismissed as misconceived; writ court order dated 31.10.2023 had recorded compliance of the judgment (work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2001, subject to pending SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court) and closed proceedings; executing court cannot sit over the writ court's compliance order.

What did the court decide?

The execution petition is clearly misconceived in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 31.10.2023. ¶16

Karnail Singh and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2024:HHC:13277 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Execution Petition No.830 of 2024

¶4

Decided on: 4.12.2024

¶5

Karnail Singh & others.

¶6

...Petitioners.

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of H.P. & others

¶9

…Respondents.

¶10

Coram

¶11

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Acting Chief Justice.

¶12

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

¶13

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶14

For the petitioner : Mr. Adarsh Kumar Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Mr. Govind Korla, Additional Advocates General and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, & Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocates General.

¶15

Tarlok Singh Chauhan,Acting Chief Justice(oral)

¶16

The execution petition is clearly misconceived in view of

¶17

the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 31.10.2023, which reads as under:

¶18

“ While placing on record ofÏce order dated

¶19

19.09.2023, issued under the signature of Division Forest OfÏcer, Churah, Division Salooni, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, learned Additional Advocate General states that mandate contained in the judgment sought to be complied with stands duly complied with.

¶20

¶21

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶22

¶23

( 2024:HHC:13277 )

¶24

Having perused aforesaid ofÏce order, which is taken on record, this Court finds that petitioner has been granted work charge status w.e.f.01.01.2001, subject to final outcome of SLP in Karnail Singh and others vs. State of H.P. and others, which is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present proceedings and accordingly same are closed”.

¶25

It needs to be noticed that this order, in fact, was passed after the disposal of the writ petition filed by the petitioners, whereby, the respondents were directed to report compliance.

¶26

Once this Court has recorded its satisfaction that the mandate contained in the judgment has been complied with and no exception has been taken by the State before the 830Writ Court, this Court while executing the judgment, cannot sit over the order passed by the Writ Court on 31.10.2023.

¶27

Accordingly, the instant petition, being misconceived, is

¶28

dismissed.

¶29

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Acting Chief Justice

¶30

4 th December, 2024 (veena)

¶31

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

Karnail Singh and Anr. v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnail Singh and Anr. v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp and Others Vs Munshi Ram and Others

Hp State Forest Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs Tej Singh

State of Hp and Others Vs Vijay Kumar

Raghuvir Singh Vs Hrtc

State of Hp and Another Vs Harinder Singh and another

Om Prakash Vs State of Hp and Ors.