IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1021 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Balam Singh & Anr. …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 petitioners for issuance of directions to the respondents for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 23.04.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.7684 of 2023, titled as Vidya Prakash Vs. The Municipal Corporation, Shimla along with connected matters. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioners in light of judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4299 of 2019, titled as Pushpa Devi Vs. Himachal Pradesh University, in CWP No. 5090 of 2022, titled as Umesh Jaswal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. and in CWPOA No. 1077 of 2019, titled as Nitin Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 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, petitioners have 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, petitioners would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken 3 towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 25, 2025 (sunil)