Kanta Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kanta Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment sought to be executed (order/judgment dated 09.01.2021 in CWP (OA) No.475 of 2020) within a period of three weeks, failing which the petitioner may seek revival of the petition for appropriate action in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents have implemented, and will execute, the order/judgment dated 09.01.2021 passed in CWP (OA) No.475 of 2020 directing that the petitioner's case be considered in light of Sunder Singh (Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017) and similar benefits extended if her case is covered.

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 and disposed of it, directing the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment sought to be executed within a period of three weeks.

Ratio / Principle

In case the respondents fail to comply within three 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.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition (T) No.299 of 2024 (Kanta Devi v. State of H.P. and Others), High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, decided 02.01.2025 (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral) — Filed for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 09.01.2021 passed in CWP (OA) No.475 of 2020, whereby a Coordinate Bench had directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the Apex Court judgment in Sunder Singh v. State of H.P. (Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided 08.03.2018) and, if covered, extend similar benefits as granted therein. As no action followed, the petitioner approached this Court. The learned Additional Advocate General stated that the order must have been complied with by now and, if not, would definitely be complied with within three weeks. On his fair stand, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment sought to be executed within three weeks, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to get the petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment.

2025:HHC:326

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Execution Petition (T) No.299 of 2024 Date of Decision: 02.01.2025

_______________________________ Kanta Devi	_______________	_______________________ ……...Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and Others		…....Respondents

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: M/s A.K. Gupta and Abhyendra Gupta, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for respondents/State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 09.01.2021, passed by this Court in CWP (OA) No.475 of 2020, titled Kanta Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others , whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petition, directed respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled Sunder Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others , decided on 08.03.2018 and in case the same is found to be covered by aforesaid judgment, then similar benefits be extended to the writ petitioner, as were granted to the petitioner in Sunder Singh’s case (supra). Since no action, whatsoever,

2025:HHC:326

2

came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, present petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

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 three weeks from today.

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 sought to be executed, within a period of three 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.

January 02, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge