IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.736 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Tule Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 20.03.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.3865 of 2024, titled as Tule Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2021, titled 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Surajmani & Anr., within eight weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 four 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 the direction to the respondents to do the needful, positively within a period of four 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 June 20, 2025 (sunil)