Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 31508 (HP)

JAI RAM v. THE HRTC AND OTHERS

EX.P./1962/2025 · 2025-10-15

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. 1962 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.10.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Jai Ram ……...Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Het Ram Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Gathania, 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 1.3.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.2865 of 2025, titled Tek Chand 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 case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 26.12.2019, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 195 of 2019, titled Sheela Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., within a period of four weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the 2 behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, 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 one week from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by 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 one week, 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. October 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge