Disposed

Sanjay Verma v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2026EX.P./2097/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an execution petition filed to enforce a prior writ judgment that directed the competent authority to decide the petitioner's representation within twelve weeks. The Additional Advocate General undertook to ensure compliance within three weeks, failing which the petitioner may revive the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to comply with the order dated 12.05.2026 within three weeks; petitioner at liberty to revive proceedings if not complied.

Sanjay Verma Vs the State of Hp and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2097 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18.09.2026

¶2

_______________________________________________________ Sanjay Verma

¶3

…….Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

¶6

… Respondents

¶7

_______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶8

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. P.D. Nanda, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.

¶10

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶11

By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 12.05.2026 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.7347 of 2026, titled as Sanjay Verma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

¶12

2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed that representation made by the petitioner shall be decided by the competent

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

authority in the light of averments made therein within twelve weeks by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. 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.

¶16

3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 three weeks from today.

¶17

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 direction to the respondents to do the needful, positively within a period of three weeks from today, 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.

¶18

(Sandeep Sharma),

¶19

September 18, 2026 (sunil)

¶20

Judge

Sanjay Verma v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Verma v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases