Gajender Kumar and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Gajender Kumar and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to implement/execute the judgment dated 07.05.2025 in CWP No.7485 of 2025 by doing the needful within two weeks, failing which the petitioners may revive these proceedings for appropriate action in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents have complied with the judgment dated 07.05.2025 in CWP No.7485 of 2025 (which directed them to consider and decide the petitioners' representations in light of CWP No.1638 of 2024), and what directions are required to secure its implementation.

Court's answer

Acting on the undertaking of the learned Additional Advocate General that the orders sought to be executed would be complied with within two weeks if not already done, the Court saw no reason to keep the present petition alive.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful positively within two weeks, if not already done; failing which, the petitioners are at liberty to get the proceedings revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the judgment/order sought to be executed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, decided 21.07.2025 by Justice Sandeep Sharma, oral): Petitioners Gajender Kumar & Anr. sought directions to the State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. for implementation and execution of the judgment dated 07.05.2025 passed in CWP No.7485 of 2025 (Gajender Kumar and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others), wherein the respondents had been directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representations (Annexure P-4) in light of the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in CWP No.1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) within six weeks. Noting that the respondents had failed to comply despite the specific direction, and acting on the undertaking of the learned Additional Advocate General that the orders sought to be executed would be complied with within two weeks if not already done, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to do the needful positively within two weeks, failing which the petitioners were declared at liberty to revive the proceedings so that appropriate action in accordance with law could be taken towards implementation of the judgment/order sought to be executed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Execution Petition No.874 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.07.2025

_______________________________________________________ Gajender Kumar & Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents

_______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioners:	Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate.
For the Respondents:	Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr.
	Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

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 07.05.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.7485 of 2025, titled as Gajender Kumar and Another Vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh & Others.

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 representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-4) in light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma

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

2

& 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, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

3. Mr. B.C.Verma, 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 two weeks from today.

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 two 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.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

July 21, 2025 (sunil)