Disposed

Shashi Bala v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2026EX.P./2155/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered an execution petition seeking implementation of an earlier order directing the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners’ representations in light of an earlier judgment. The respondents stated that the order had been complied with or would be complied with within eight weeks. The court disposed of the petition with that direction, allowing revival if the order remained unimplemented.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to implement the judgment within eight weeks; on failure, the petitioners were permitted to revive the execution petition for appropriate action.

Shashi Bala 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.2155 of 2026 Date of Decision: 21.9.2026

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Shashi Bala 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. 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. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶8

By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioners for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 21.5.2025, passed by Court in CWP No.8171 of 2025, titled Gunjan Thakur 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

¶9

¶10

pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioners have 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 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

Shashi Bala v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Bala 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