IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.410 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Taruna Kalia …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant Execution Petition filed under Rule 16(1) of the H.P. High Court Original Side Rules, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 01.03.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No. 965 of 2025, titled Taruna Kalia vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner within a period of four 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 weeks in terms of judgment dated 10.04.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No. 1853 of 2009, titled Arpana Bali versus the State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents failed to do the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order alleged to have been violated, 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 fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly, same are closed with the direction to the respondent to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 01.03.2025, positively within a period of three 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 May 23,2025 (shankar)