IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1627 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Narpat 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, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. _______________________________________________________ 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 20.09.2023 passed by this Court in CWP No.6580 of 2023, titled as Sh. Narpat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that this Court, while 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of order dated 18th July, 2022 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022, titled as Balo Devi Vs. State of H.P 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. 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 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 from today, if not already done, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with 3 law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 29, 2025 (sunil)