Disposed¶18

Raghu Nath v. Hptdc and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Nov 2025EX.P./2361/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution Petition No.2361 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral, 21.11.2025); execution of judgment dated 27.05.2025 in CWP No.7183 of 2025 (Raghu Nath v. HPTDC); non-compliance with six-week direction anchored to CWP No.6628 of 2021 (Anil Kumar Goel v. HPTDC); undertaking by respondents' counsel (S.S. Panta); petition disposed of with three-week compliance direction and liberty to revive on failure; no costs or quantum awarded.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to implement/execute the judgment/order dated 27.05.2025 in CWP No.7183 of 2025 within three weeks, failing which the petitioner may seek revival of these proceedings. ¶18

Raghu Nath Vs Hptdc and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No.2361 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.11.2025

¶3

_______________________________________________________ Raghu Nath

…….Petitioner

Versus

HPTDC & Ors.

… Respondents

_______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶9

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

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate.

¶11

For the Respondents : Mr. S.S. Panta, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶12

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 27.05.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.7183 of 2025, titled as Raghu Nath Vs. Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation, Shimla & Anr.

¶13

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 respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Principal Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6628 of 2021 titled Anil Kumar Goel Vs. Himachal Pradesh Tourism

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. 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.

¶17

3. Mr. S.S. Panta, learned counsel representing the respondents, 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 three weeks from today.

¶18

4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by learned counsel representing the respondents, 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 three 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 law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings.

¶19

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶20

November 21, 2025 (sunil)

Raghu Nath v. Hptdc and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghu Nath v. Hptdc 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

Kapil Dev Vs State of Hp and Others

Hans Raj Vs the State of Hp and Another

Controller of Stores Northern Railways Vs M/S Cbm Industries Private Ltd. and Another

Upasana Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Baldev Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Khem Chand and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others