Yogesh Sharma Vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr

Himachal Pradesh HC 10 Nov 2025 Execution Petition No. 2144 Of 2025 (2025) 11 SHI CK 0005
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Execution Petition No. 2144 Of 2025

Hon'ble Bench

Sandeep Sharma, J

Advocates

Dhanvanti, Anuja Mehta, Anup Rattan, Rajan Kahol, Vishal Panwar, Ravi Chauhan, Anish Banshtu

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Judgement Text

Translate:

Sandeep Sharma, J

1. y way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on be alf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 28.07.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.12097 of 2025, titled as Yogesh Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) in light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma& Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. within six weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, lea ned 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 orders, s ught to be executed, 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 afore undertaking given 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, positively within a period of three weeks from today, if not already done, failing which, petitioner 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.

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More