Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20029 (HP)

MANOJ KUMAR v. THE HRTC AND ANOTHER

EX.P./1096/2025 · 2025-08-13

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 1096 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Manoj Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Heman Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 18.3.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.3701 of 2025, titled Manoj Kumar v. HRTC and Anr., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondent/competent authority to consider and decide representation of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 17.7.2014 passed in CWP No. 3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., within a period of eight weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to 2 aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, appearing for 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 three weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel for the respondents, 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 three weeks, failing which petitioner 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. August 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge