Disposed

Latesh v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2026EX.P./2118/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought execution of an earlier High Court judgment directing the respondents to extend the benefit of notifications dated 3 January 2022 and 6 September 2022 with consequential benefits. The respondents stated that compliance might already have occurred but undertook to complete the directions within two weeks. The execution petition was disposed of with that direction, subject to revival if compliance did not occur.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to comply with the earlier judgment within two weeks, failing which the petitioners could revive the execution petition for appropriate action; compliance was listed for 16 October 2026.

Latesh Vs the State of Hp and Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No.2118 of 2026 Date of Decision: 21.9.2026

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Latesh and Ors. ……...Petitio Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

¶4

	……...Petitioners
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. ___________________________________________________________________________

¶8

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶9

By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioners for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 26.2.2026, passed by this Court in CWP No.1917 of 2026, titled Latesh and Ors..v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to extend the benefit of notifications dated 3.1.2022 and 6.9.2022 to the petitioners along with consequential benefits within four weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents

¶10

¶11

pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 petitioners 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.

¶14

List for compliance on 16.10.2026.

¶15

September 21, 2026 (manjit)

¶16

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Latesh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latesh 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