Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | EX.P./571/2024 of RAJ KUMAR AND ORS Vs STATE OF HP AND ORS |
| CNR | HPHC010210412024 |
| Decision Date | 01-08-2024 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla |
| Bench | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi |
| Ratio Decidendi | When the Supreme Court has passed interim orders staying benefits granted by earlier High Court or appellate decrees in related matters, execution proceedings in the High Court may be closed without prejudice. Execution is deferred until final outcome in the SLPs, and petitioners retain liberty to revive or re-file their petitions post the Supreme Court’s final adjudication. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Interim orders passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 10788/2023, 3348/2024, 14765/2024, 1552/2024 and arising out of LPA No.165/2021 |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners sought execution of relief granted to similarly situated persons. The State respondents placed on record that the Supreme Court has stayed those reliefs via interim orders in multiple SLPs. The Department has issued office orders only subject to final outcome of the SLPs, but no substantive benefits have been extended. Thus, the High Court found continuation of execution proceedings rendered futile. |
| Citations | (2024:HHC:6277) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Execution petitions in subordinate courts can be summarily closed where the Supreme Court has granted interim relief in related appeals.
- Petitioners retain the right to revive the execution petition or file afresh after the Supreme Court’s final decision.
- High Courts may dispose of execution matters without prejudice when higher court injunctions render enforcement premature.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court reviewed interim orders passed by the Supreme Court in multiple Special Leave Petitions, which had stayed benefits granted by earlier decrees.
- It noted that although the Department issued office orders, no substantive relief was implemented due to the pending SLPs.
- Given the higher court injunctions, continuation of the execution petition would serve no purpose until final adjudication.
- Exercising its inherent and procedural powers, the High Court closed the execution petition without prejudice, granting petitioners liberty to revive or re-file post the Supreme Court’s decision.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- Sought execution of decrees/orders under which similarly situated persons had obtained benefits.
Respondents (State of Himachal Pradesh)
- Submitted that the Supreme Court had passed interim orders staying the benefits in multiple SLPs.
- Noted that only office orders were issued by the Department, subject to the final outcome in those SLPs.
- Contended that no substantive relief had been extended, rendering execution proceedings premature.
Factual Background
Raj Kumar and others filed Execution Petition No. 571/2024 in the High Court seeking enforcement of relief granted to similarly situated persons. The State respondents informed the Court that the Supreme Court had passed interim orders staying those benefits in several Special Leave Petitions. Although the Department issued office orders in a few cases, no actual benefits were implemented pending the final outcome of the SLPs. On that basis, the High Court found further prosecution of the execution petition futile and disposed of the matter with liberty to revive or re-file once the Supreme Court’s decisions are pronounced.
Citations
- (2024:HHC:6277)