Himachal Pradesh High Court
_______________________________________________________ vs Hrtc & Anr on 4 June, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No.574 of 2025
Date of Decision: 04.06.2025
_______________________________________________________
Kishori Lal …….Petitioner
Versus
HRTC & Anr. … Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been
made on behalf of petitioner for issuance of directions to the
respondents to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated
11.01.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No.469 of 2024, titled as
2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be
executed in the present proceedings, reveals that Coordinate Bench
of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner,
directed respondent No. 1-Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh
Transport Corporation, to consider the representation dated
20.12.2023 in the light of the judgment passed by Division Bench of
this Court in CWPOA No. 2343 of 2020, titled as Vikram Singh Vs.
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
H.P. Road Transfer Corporation and others. 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. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, while accepting notice on
behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to
believe and presume that by now aforesaid orders, sought to be
executed, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be
complied with within a period of two weeks from today.
4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by
learned counsel for the respondents, 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 two weeks, 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.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
June 04, 2025
(sunil)
[ad_1]
Source link