IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.884 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mast Ram …….Petitioner Versus HP State Electricty Board & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand Sharma & Mr. K.C.Sankhyan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General 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 for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 19.10.2023 passed by this Court in CWP No.2983 of 2019, titled as Mast Ram Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. 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 and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 196 of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2022 titled as Roop Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others within four 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. Vishal Panwar, 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 three 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 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 July 22, 2025 (sunil)