IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 1092 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Hem Raj ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. RAjender Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar 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 by the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 17.3.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.10453 of 2025, titled Hem Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondent/competent authority to consider and decide representation of the petitioner in light of judgments passed by Coordinate Benches of this court in CWPOA No. 348 of 2019 titled Krishan Lal @ Krishnu Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and in CWPOA 2 No. 352 of 2019, titled Keshav Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., within a period of four weeks. 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. 2. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy 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 three weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Deputy 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 three 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 implementation of the order/judgment. August 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge