Disposed¶12

Ravi Dass v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC23 Jul 2025EX.P./949/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HP High Court, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J.), 23.7.2025 — Execution Petition No. 949 of 2025, Ravi Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.: execution of direction in judgment dated 23.5.2025 in CWP No. 8565 of 2025 (representation to be decided in light of Mohit Sharma, CWP No. 1638 of 2024, judgment dated 29.11.2024, within four weeks); respondents to comply within two weeks, else petition may be revived; disposed of on AAG's fair stand.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to do the needful in terms of the judgment alleged to have been violated (order/judgment dated 23.5.2025 in CWP No. 8565 of 2025) within a period of two weeks; failing which, petitioner at liberty to seek revival of the petition for appropriate action in accordance with law towards implementation of the order/judgment. ¶12

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the order/judgment dated 23.5.2025 passed in CWP No. 8565 of 2025, directing consideration and decision of the petitioner's representation within four weeks, has been implemented by the respondents, and what directions should issue for its execution.

¶8

Court's answer

In view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, the Court saw no reason to keep the present petition alive.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The execution petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks.

¶12

Key takeaways

Failing compliance within two weeks, the petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition No. 949 of 2025 (decided 23.7.2025) — Ravi Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (Sandeep Sharma, J.): Petition for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 23.5.2025 in CWP No. 8565 of 2025, whereby the writ petition had been disposed of with a direction to the respondent/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in light of the judgment dated 29.11.2024 in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.) within four weeks; no action was taken by the respondents. On the statement of the learned Additional Advocate General that the order must have been, and if not would definitely be, complied with within two weeks, the Court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment alleged to have been violated within two weeks, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of the petition for appropriate action in accordance with law towards implementation of the order/judgment.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No. 949 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.7.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Ravi Dass ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

¶4

……...Petitioner Versus …....Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

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

¶7

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶8

By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 23.5.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No. 8565 of 2025, titled Ravi Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondent/competent authority to consider and decide representation of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., within a period of four weeks. Since

¶9

¶10

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.

¶11

2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, 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.

¶12

3. Consequently, in view of the 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 alleged to have been violated 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 implementation of the order/judgment.

Ravi Dass v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Dass 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

Shyam Lal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Subhash Chander Vs Veena Devi

Roop Kaur and Others Vs Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishwavidyalaya and Others

Ratti Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Arvind Sharma Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Ors.

Krishan Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others