YASHWANT SINGH v. HP STATE FOREST CORPORATION AND ANOTHER
EX.P./2662/2025 · 2025-12-19
Sandeep Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 37047 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 37047 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No. 2662 of 2025
Date of Decision: 19.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Yashwant Singh
……...Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation and Anr.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. D.S. Kainthla, 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 30.7.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.12165 of 2025, titled Yashwant Singh v. Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation and Anr., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of Surajmani’s case, within a period of six weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2
2.
Mr. D.S. Kainthla, 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 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.
December 19, 2025
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge