IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.465 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Utesh Mehta & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta and Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocates. 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 petitioners for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/ execute the judgment/order dated 28.02.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 6197 of 2024, titled Sh. Utesh Mehta and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and other. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment/order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings, reveals that this Court having taken note of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners that case of the petitioners is squarely covered by judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents have failed to grant the benefit to the petitioners in terms of the aforesaid judgment, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. B.C.Verma, 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 judgment/ order 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 petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment dated 28.02.2025, positively within a period of two weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioners would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate 3 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)