Disposed

Hem Raj v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2026EX.P./2132/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought execution of an earlier High Court order directing the respondents to consider and decide their representation within twelve weeks. The court recorded that no action had been taken. After the respondents assured compliance within two weeks, the execution petition was disposed of with a direction to implement the earlier order within that period, subject to revival and appropriate action if compliance did not occur.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to implement the earlier judgment within two weeks; the petition was listed for compliance on 16.10.2026 and could be revived by the petitioners if the direction was not complied with.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No.2132 of 2026 Date of Decision: 21.9.2026

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Hem Raj and Ors. ……...Petitioners 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 23.2.2026, passed by this Court in CWP No.1245 of 2026, titled Hem Raj and Ors. 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 representation of the petitioners within twelve weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶10

¶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 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

¶13

order/judgment.

¶14

List for compliance on 16.10.2026.

¶15

September 21, 2026

¶16

(manjit)

¶17

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Hem Raj v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hem Raj 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