Disposed¶14

Leena and Anr. v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jul 2025EX.P./771/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court execution petition seeking enforcement of writ judgment dated 04.04.2025 in CWP No.2975 of 2025, which had directed the State to decide the petitioners' representation in light of CWPOA No.5536 of 2020 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of H.P.) within four weeks; alleged non-compliance by respondents; undertaking by learned Additional Advocate General (Rajan Kahol) to comply within four weeks; petition disposed of with four-week compliance direction and liberty to revive proceedings on failure; Justice Sandeep Sharma; decided 01.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to the respondents to comply with the judgment dated 04.04.2025 in CWP No.2975 of 2025 within four weeks, if not already done; on failure, petitioners at liberty to seek revival of the proceedings. ¶14

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should be issued to the respondents for implementation and execution of the judgment dated 04.04.2025 in CWP No.2975 of 2025, and whether the execution petition should be kept alive or disposed of in view of the respondents' undertaking to comply within four weeks.

¶8

Court's answer

In view of the undertaking given by the learned Additional Advocate General that the orders sought to be executed stand complied with, or would otherwise be complied with within four weeks, the Court saw no reason to keep the present petition alive and disposed of it.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Respondents directed to do the needful (implement the judgment sought to be executed) positively within a period of four weeks, if not already done; failing which, petitioners would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition No.771 of 2025, decided 01.07.2025 by Sandeep Sharma J. (oral), High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioners Leena & Anr. sought directions for implementation and execution of the judgment dated 04.04.2025 in CWP No.2975 of 2025 (Leena & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.), by which the respondents had been directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representation in light of the Division Bench judgment in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) within four weeks. Alleging non-compliance despite the specific direction, the petitioners approached this Court. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, accepted notice on behalf of the respondents and stated that the orders sought to be executed must have been complied with by now, but if not, would be complied with within four weeks. Holding there was no reason to keep the petition alive in view of that undertaking, the Court disposed of it, directing the respondents to do the needful positively within four weeks if not already done, failing which the petitioners would be at liberty to seek revival of the proceedings for appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No.771 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.07.2025

¶3

_______________________________________________________ Leena & Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶4

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the Petitioners:	Mr. Adarsh K.Vashista, Advocate.
For the Respondents:	Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional
	Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan,
	Deputy Advocate General.

¶7

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶8

By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for issuance of directions to the respondents for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 04.04.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.2975 of 2025, titled as Leena & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

¶9

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 petitioners, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020 titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

Himachal Pradesh & Ors. within four weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶13

3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 four weeks from today.

¶14

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 four weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioners 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.

¶15

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶16

July 01, 2025 (sunil)

Leena and Anr. v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leena and Anr. 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

Asha Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Nand Lal Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Anr.

Ranjana B Ram Vs the State of Hp and Another

Dinesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Om Parkash Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Another