IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.869 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Beena Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Nikhil Katwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State.. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for execution and implementation of judgment dated 28.04.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.6853 of 2025, whereby this Court passed the following order: “4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner, in light of afore judgment, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court of law if she still remains aggrieved. All pending applications stand disposed of.” 2 2. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, 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 two weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of 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 sought to be executed, within a period of two weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards the implementation of the order/judgment. July 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge