IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1949 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sunder Bhagat & Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General 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 for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 17.09.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.10245 of 2024, titled as Sunder Bhagat and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioners, directed 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 that representations made by the petitioners shall be decided by the competent authority in the light of averments made therein within eight weeks by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, 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 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 Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful, positively within a period of two 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 10, 2026 (sunil)