Disposed¶19

Anupama Makhaik v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Nov 2025EX.P./2125/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HP High Court, Shimla; Execution Petition No.2125 of 2025, decided 07.11.2025; Sandeep Sharma, J. Enforcement of order dated 30.07.2025 in CWP No.12387 of 2025 requiring decision on representation Annexure P-5 in light of Mohit Sharma (CWP No. 1638 of 2024); non-compliance alleged; Additional Advocate General (Vishal Panwar) gave six-week compliance undertaking; petition disposed with direction to comply within six weeks and liberty to revive on default. No monetary relief; no statute discussed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to implement/comply with the order-judgment dated 30.07.2025 in CWP No.12387 of 2025 within six weeks, if not already done; liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek revival of the proceedings on failure of compliance. ¶19

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should be issued to the respondents for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 30.07.2025 passed in CWP No.12387 of 2025, and whether it has been complied with.

¶13

Court's answer

In view of the undertaking of the learned Additional Advocate General that the orders sought to be executed have been, or will be, complied with within six weeks, the Court saw no reason to keep the present petition alive.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The execution petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to do the needful, i.e., implement the judgment/order dated 30.07.2025, positively within six weeks, if not already done.

¶19

Key takeaways

Failing compliance within six weeks, the petitioner is at liberty to seek revival of these proceedings so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the judgment/order sought to be executed.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition under which the petitioner sought directions for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 30.07.2025 passed in CWP No.12387 of 2025 (Anupama Makhaik v. State of H.P.), whereby respondents had been directed to consider and decide her representation (Annexure P-5) within six weeks in light of CWP No. 1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma & Anr.). On the allegation that respondents had not complied, the learned Additional Advocate General, accepting notice, stated his belief that compliance must by then have occurred, and undertook that, if not, it would be effected within six weeks. Accepting that undertaking, the High Court disposed of the execution petition, directing the respondents to do the needful positively within six weeks, failing which the petitioner may seek revival of the proceedings so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the judgment/order sought to be executed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No.2125 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.11.2025

¶3

_______________________________________________________ Smt. Anupama Makhaik

¶4

…….Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

Coram:

¶9

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Pranav Kaushal, Advocate.

¶11

For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.

¶12

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶13

By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 30.07.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.12387 of 2025, titled as Anupama Makhaik Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

¶14

2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) in light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. within six weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶18

3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid orders, sought to be executed, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of six weeks from today.

¶19

4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful, positively within a period of six weeks from today, if not already done, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with

¶20

¶21

law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought

¶22

to be executed in the instant proceedings.

¶23

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶24

November 07, 2025 (sunil)

Anupama Makhaik v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anupama Makhaik 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

Manisha Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Abhishek Choudhary Vs the State of Hp and Others

Suraj Singh Vs Hrtc and Others

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Another

Subhash Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sumit Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others