1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 21064 of 2025 Decided on: 23.02.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Om Krishan Justa …..Petitioner Versus The Baghat Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. B.M.Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge At the oral request made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Solan, District Solan, H.P is impleaded as respondent No.3. Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents. In view of grievance of the petitioner and nature of order being passed hereinafter, notice of this writ petition is not required to be issued to respondent No.1. Reply of the appearing respondents is also not necessary. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 “i) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against the respondent No.1, directing the respondent No.1 to pay interest @ of 11% on the amount of ₹1,87,239/- i.e. w.e.f. 1.10.2019 till 23.10.2024, when the respondent No.2 actually released the amount in compliance to the judgment passed by the Ld. Registrar dated 26.02.2019, Annexure P-2. ii) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued against the respondents, directing the respondents to pay interest @15% on the amount of ₹20 lakhs i.e. w.e.f. 07.12.2017 till 29.06.2020, when the withheld compensation amount was actually released by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner.” 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that present writ petition be treated to have been maintained qua relief No. (i) only and petitioner be permitted to seek appropriate remedy at an appropriate stage qua relief no.(ii). Prayer is accepted. Accordingly, this writ petition has been heard only qua relief No.(i). Relief No.(i) pertains to enforcement of an order passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Society, H.P. on 26.02.2019 ( Annexure P-2) which is stated to have attained finality. Petitioner’s grievance is that even though execution petition under Section 87 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 read with Rule 119 of the H.P. Co- operative Society Rules, 1971 had been referred for execution of aforesaid order/judgment on 26.11.2019 yet save & except issuing several letters to respondent No.1 the Concerned Authority i.e. respondent No.3 has not taken any constructive steps/action for enforcement of the order in 3 letter & spirit. That the order still remains unexecuted and this inaction is causing financial hardship to the petitioner. 4. Taking into consideration the limited grievance projected for the petitioner and the documents available on record, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.3/Competent Authority to adjudicate upon the execution petition under reference as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from today by ensuring the due implementation of the final order (Annexure P-2) in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua February 23, 2026 Judge yogesh