Disposed¶15

Ankita v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Aug 2025EX.P./1164/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HP High Court, Shimla; Execution Petition No. 1164 of 2025; decided 20.8.2025 by Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral); enforcement of non-complied writ direction dated 24.4.2025 in CWP No.6711 of 2025 (Ankita v. State of H.P. and Ors.) to decide petitioner's pending representation; petition disposed with three-week compliance direction to respondents and liberty to revive on failure.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment dated 24.4.2025 passed in CWP No.6711 of 2025 within three weeks, failing which the petitioner may seek revival of the execution petition for appropriate action in accordance with law. ¶15

Ankita Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents have complied with, and whether this Court should secure enforcement of, the direction in the judgment dated 24.4.2025 in CWP No.6711 of 2025 requiring consideration and decision of the petitioner's pending representation.

¶14

Court's answer

In view of the fair stand adopted by the Additional Advocate General (that the judgment dated 24.4.2025 had been, or would within three weeks be, complied with in its totality), the Court saw no reason to keep the execution petition alive and disposed of it with a direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

If the respondents fail to comply within three weeks, the petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment.

¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition No. 1164 of 2025 (decided 20.8.2025, Sandeep Sharma, J.) sought implementation of the judgment dated 24.4.2025 in CWP No.6711 of 2025 (Ankita v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.), which had directed the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation within two weeks. Since no action was taken, the petitioner moved this execution petition. On the Additional Advocate General's fair stand that compliance had been effected or would definitely be effected within three weeks, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to do the needful in terms of the earlier judgment within three weeks, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to seek revival of the petition so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No. 1164 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.8.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Ankita ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

¶4

……...Petitioner Versus

¶5

…....Respondents

¶6

Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶8

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate.

¶9

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________

¶10

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶11

By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 24.4.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.6711 of 2025, titled Ankita v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority consider and decide her pending representation within a period of two weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents

¶12

¶13

pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶14

2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment sought to be executed, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of three weeks from today.

¶15

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by 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 alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment.

¶16

August 20, 2025

¶17

(manjit)

Ankita v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankita v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pawan Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ghananand Sharma Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Dinesh Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ghansham Vs the State of Hp and Others

Nuram Chand Vs State of Hp and Ors.