IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 87 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kapil Dev and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta and Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 9.10.2023, passed by this Court in CWPOA No. 1576 of 2019, titled Kapil Dev and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 12.1.2023, rendered by Division Bench 2 of this Court in LPA No. 165 of 2021, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Surajmani and Ors., within a period of six weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment sought to be executed, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of four weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of four weeks, failing which petitioners would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards implementation of the order/judgment. June 18, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge