Disposed¶14

Beena Devi v. the State of Hp and Another

Execution Petition – High Court of Himachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Jul 2025EX.P./869/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Beena Devi v. State of H.P.; Execution Petition No.869 of 2025; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; decided 15.07.2025; Sandeep Sharma, J.; execution of judgment dated 28.04.2025 in CWP No.6853 of 2025; non-implementation of writ direction; representation Annexure P-4; two-week compliance direction; Additional Advocate General undertaking (Rajan Kahol); revival of execution petition on default; petitioner's counsel Nikhil Katwal.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to do the needful in terms of the judgment sought to be executed (judgment dated 28.04.2025 in CWP No.6853 of 2025) within two weeks; liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek revival of the execution petition in case of default. ¶14

Beena Devi Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents had complied with the direction contained in the judgment dated 28.04.2025 in CWP No.6853 of 2025, and whether the Court should secure/enforce such compliance in the execution petition.

¶12

Court's answer

In view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, the Court saw no reason to keep the execution petition alive and disposed of it, directing the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment sought to be executed within a period of two weeks.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Upon failure of compliance within two weeks, the petitioner is at liberty to get the execution petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition — High Court of Himachal Pradesh — Execution Petition No.869 of 2025, decided on 15.07.2025 by Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral) — Petitioner sought execution and implementation of judgment dated 28.04.2025 in CWP No.6853 of 2025, whereby the respondents had been directed to consider and decide her representation (Annexure P-4) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, affording hearing and passing a speaking order. Alleging total non-action by the respondents, she approached this Court. The learned Additional Advocate General stated that the order/judgment sought to be executed had presumably been complied with in its totality, failing which it would be complied with within two weeks. In view of this fair stand, the Court disposed of the execution petition directing the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment sought to be executed within two weeks, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to get the petition revived for appropriate action in accordance with law towards implementation.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No.869 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.07.2025

¶3

Beena Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another …....Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

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

¶6

For the Petitioner: Mr. Nikhil Katwal, Advocate.

¶7

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State..

¶8

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶9

By way of instant execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for execution and implementation of judgment dated 28.04.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.6853 of 2025, whereby this Court passed the following order:

¶10

“4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner, in light of afore judgment, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court of law if she still remains aggrieved. All pending applications stand disposed of.”

¶11

¶12

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.

¶13

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance 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.

¶14

Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by the learned 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 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.

¶15

July 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge

Beena Devi v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beena Devi v. the State of Hp and Another

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

Bimla Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Sanjay Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Saroj Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kanta Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Yashwant Singh and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Dolma Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others