IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.71 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajesh Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Bir Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol 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, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 27.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5600 of 2019, titled Rajesh Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 two 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 respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 27.11.2024, 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 May 26,2025 (shankar)