Mehru Devi Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mehru Devi Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Execution petition disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of the order/judgment dated 26.6.2025 in CWP No.3813 of 2024 (alleged to have been violated) within a period of two weeks, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents have failed to comply with, and whether they will now implement, the direction contained in the order/judgment dated 26.6.2025 in CWP No.3813 of 2024, so that the present execution petition may be disposed of with a fresh compliance timeline.

Court's answer

In view of the fair stand adopted by the Additional Advocate General, the Court saw no reason to keep the present execution petition alive and disposed of it, directing the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks; failing such compliance, the petitioner would be at liberty to get the petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment. (The Additional Advocate General's statement that the order had been, or would be, complied with within two weeks is counsel's submission recorded by the Court, not an independent finding.)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition No. 1972 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Sandeep Sharma, J.; decision dated 15.10.2025) — Smt. Mehru Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Petition filed for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 26.6.2025 in CWP No.3813 of 2024, whereby the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the judgment dated 19.5.2022 in CWP No. 248 of 2017 (State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Girdhari Lal) within four weeks; no action having been taken, the petitioner moved the present execution petition. On the statement of the learned Additional Advocate General that the order sought to be executed had been, or would definitely be, complied with within two weeks, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment alleged to have been violated within two weeks, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of the petition for appropriate action in accordance with law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Execution Petition No. 1972 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.10.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Smt. Mehru Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

……...Petitioner Versus …....Respondents

Coram

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

For the Petitioner: Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.6. ___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 26.6.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.3813 of 2024, titled Smt. Mehru Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 19.5.2022 passed in CWP No. 248 of 2017, titled State of Himachal

2

Pradesh and Ors. v. Girdhari Lal, within a period of four weeks. 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.

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 two weeks from today. 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 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 implementation of the order/judgment.

October 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge