Disposed

Sanjeev Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2026EX.P./2112/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought execution of an earlier High Court direction requiring the competent authority to consider and decide his representation. The respondents informed the Court that compliance was presumed, but undertook to complete the action within two weeks if it had not already been done. The Court disposed of the execution petition, directed compliance within two weeks, and retained liberty for revival and appropriate action if the direction was not complied with.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to comply with the earlier judgment within two weeks; the petition was listed for compliance on 16.10.2026, with liberty to revive it if the direction was not complied with.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Execution and Attachment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No.2112 of 2026 Date of Decision: 21.9.2026

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar ……...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. Yogesh Kumar Chandel 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)

¶8

By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 18.3.2026, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3166 of 2026, titled Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within twelve weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to

¶9

¶10

aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶11

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

¶13

List for compliance on 16.10.2026.

¶14

September 21, 2026 (manjit)

¶15

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Sanjeev Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases