JYOTI SHARMA AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
EX.P./2323/2026 · 2026-09-28
Sandeep Sharma
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 25396 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 25396 (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. 2323 of 2026 Date of Decision: 28.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Jyoti Sharma & others
…….Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 26.02.2026 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1899 of 2026, titled Jyoti Sharma and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
2.
Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of 12 weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents have failed to do so, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
3.
Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of three weeks from today.
4.
Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly
disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of order/judgment dated 26.02.2026 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, positively within a period of three weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioners would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken towards implementation of the
judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings.
List for compliance on 05.11.2026.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 28,2026 (shankar)