Disposed

Jasvinder Bains v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2026EX.P./2153/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought execution of an earlier High Court judgment directing the respondents or competent authority to consider and decide their representations within six weeks, having regard to an earlier decision. Although the respondents’ counsel stated that the judgment had probably been fully implemented, he undertook to ensure compliance within eight weeks if it had not. The Court disposed of the execution petition with that direction, allowing the petitioners to seek revival and appropriate enforcement if the direction was not complied with.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to implement the earlier judgment within eight weeks, failing which the petitioners could seek revival of the execution petition for appropriate action.

Jasvinder Bains Vs the State of Hp and… — Execution and Attachment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No.2153 of 2026 Date of Decision: 21.9.2026

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Jasvinder Bains 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. Sanjeev Kumar Motta Advocate. 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 9.5.2025, passed by Court in CWP No.7695 of 2025, titled Jasvinder Bains and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide representations of the petitioners in light of judgment dated 3.8.2023, passed in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, within six 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 eight 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 eight 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

September 21, 2026 (manjit)

¶15

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Jasvinder Bains v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasvinder Bains 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