Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38684 (HP)

FATEH SINGH v. THE HRTC AND OTHERS

EX.P./2500/2025 · 2025-12-11

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. 2500of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Fateh Singh ……...Petitioner Versus HRTC and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Gupta, 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 13.5.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No. 4451 of 2025, titled Fatesh Singh v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation 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 9.11.2023, passed in CWPOA No. 2343 of 2020, titled Vikram Singh v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (alongwith connected matters), within a period of four weeks. Since no action, 2 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. Learned counsel for the respondents state 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 two 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 two 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 11, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge