Disposed

Anil Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2026EX.P./2154/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought enforcement of an earlier High Court direction requiring the competent authority to consider and decide their representation. The respondents gave an assurance that the direction would be fully complied with within eight weeks. The execution petition was accordingly disposed of, with liberty to revive it and seek appropriate implementation if compliance did not occur.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to comply with the earlier judgment within eight weeks; on failure, the petitioners may revive the execution petition and seek appropriate action for implementation.

Anil Kumar Vs 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.2154 of 2026 Date of Decision: 21.9.2026

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Anil Kumar 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 1.9.2024, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.10463 of 2025, titled Anil Kumar 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 representation of the petitioners within eight 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 eight 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 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.

¶13

September 21, 2026

¶14

(manjit)

¶15

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Anil Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. 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