Disposed¶11

Roop Singh v. the Hpsfc and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC27 Aug 2025EX.P./1603/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court execution petition (Ex.P. No.1603 of 2025) by Sh. Roop Singh v. H.P. State Forest Corp. & Anr.; enforcement of writ direction in CWP No.7085 of 2025 (judgment dated 01.05.2025); initial non-compliance by respondents; compliance directed within two weeks on counsel's statement; liberty reserved to revive petition on default.

What did the court decide?

Execution petition disposed of with direction to the respondents to comply with/do the needful in terms of the judgment dated 01.05.2025 in CWP No.7085 of 2025 within two weeks, failing which the petitioner may seek revival of the petition. ¶11

Roop Singh Vs the Hpsfc and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No.1603 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.08.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Roop Singh ……...Petitioner Versus H.P. State Forest Corp. & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. D.S. Kainthla, Advocate.

¶4

___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

By way of instant execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for execution and implementation of judgment dated 01.05.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.7085 of 2025, whereby this Court passed the following order:

¶6

“4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.”

¶7

Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶8

¶9

Mr. D.S. Kainthla, Advocate, while putting in appearance

¶10

on behalf of 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 two weeks from today.

¶11

Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by the learned counsel representing the respondents, 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 sought to be executed, within a period of two 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 the implementation of the order/judgment.

¶12

August 27, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge

Roop Singh v. the Hpsfc and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roop Singh v. the Hpsfc and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Lal Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Narinder Kumar Vs Nipun Jindal

Krishna Devi Vs the State of Hp and Another

Beli Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others