GOPAL v. STATE OF HP AND ORS
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Himachal Pradesh judgment dated 2020-10-14. GOPAL v. STATE OF HP AND ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 408 of 2020 Date of Decision: 14. 10. 2020 ________________________________________________________ Sh. Gopal …... Petitioner. Versus State of H. P. & ors. .... Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting ? _______________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. A. K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Arvind Sharma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Kunal Thakur and Ms. Savneel Jaswal, Deputy Advocate Generals. Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Through Video Conferencing By way of present execution petition filed under Clause 16(1) of the HP High Court Original Side Rules 1997, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 14. 03. 2018, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No.
6727 of 2017, whereby the Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 31. 7. 2014, passed in CWP No. 2415 of 2012, titled Mathu Ram v. Municipal Corporation and Ors, directed Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? the respondents to consider the case of the applicant strictly in light of aforesaid judgment and grant similar benefit to him, if he is found similarly situate within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr.
Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the respondents states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment alleged to have been violated must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of six weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, 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 against the respondents. th 14 October, 2020 ( Sandeep Sharma ) (reena) Judge
Source: High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.