Disposed¶10

Shashi Bala v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jan 2026EX.P./2705/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution Petition; Shashi Bala v. State of Himachal Pradesh; enforcement of writ order dated 05.05.2025 in CWP No.2453 of 20245 requiring decision per Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 (State of H.P. v. Surajmani); Additional Advocate General undertaking; two-week compliance deadline; liberty to revive proceedings on non-compliance; Sandep Sharma, Judge; disposed 01.01.2026; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the respondents to implement the order dated 05.05.2025 passed in CWP No.2453 of 20245 within two weeks, failing which the petitioner may seek revival of these proceedings for appropriate action in accordance with law. ¶10

Shashi Bala Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents have implemented, and should be directed to implement, the order/judgment dated 05.05.2025 passed in CWP No.2453 of 20245, which required the petitioner's case to be considered and decided in light of the Apex Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025.

¶4

Court's answer

In view of the undertaking given by the learned Additional Advocate General that the orders sought to be executed stood complied with or would be complied with within two weeks, the Court saw no reason to keep the present petition alive.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful positively within a period of two weeks from the date of the order, if not already done.

¶10

Key takeaways

Failing compliance within two weeks, the petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the judgment/order sought to be executed.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition No.2705 of 2025 (Smt. Shashi Bala v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.), filed to enforce the High Court's order/judgment dated 05.05.2025 in CWP No.2453 of 20245 — whereby the respondents were directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 (State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Surajmani and others) within four weeks — was disposed of on the strength of the Additional Advocate General's undertaking: the respondents to comply within two weeks if not already done, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of the proceedings for appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No.2705 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.01.2026

¶3

_______________________________________________________ Smt. Shashi Bala …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶4

By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents for the implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 05.05.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.2453 of 20245, titled as Shashi Bala Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others.

¶5

2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1595 of

¶6

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶7

¶8

2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Surajmani and others. within four weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶9

3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid orders, sought to be executed, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of two weeks from today.

¶10

4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful, positively within a period of two weeks from today, if not already done, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings.

¶11

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶12

January 01, 2026 (sunil)

Shashi Bala v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Bala v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Vs the Hrtc and Another

Kanhiya Lal Vs Hp State Forest Corporation and Another

Saurabh Dhiman Vs the Jogindra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Another

Hem Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Joginder Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sunil Chand Vs the State of Hp and Another