Disposed
Ramesh Chand v. State of Hp and Ors.
Himachal Pradesh HCEX.P./2014/2026
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No.2014 of 2026 Date of Decision: 15.9.2026
_____________________________________________________________________ Ramesh Chand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
……...Petitioner Versus …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pawan K. Sharma and Ms. Tim Saran Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________
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 26.8.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No. 13680 of 2025, titled Ramesh Chand 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 case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 7.4.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4830of 2023, titled as Inder Singh Thakur and Ors. v. State of Himachal
2
Pradesh and Anr . (along with connected matter), within a period of eight weeks. 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.
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 three weeks from today.
3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the 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 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 implementation of the order/judgment.
September 15, 2026
(manjit)
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge
Ramesh Chand
State of Himachal Pradesh
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court