IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1619 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Munshi Ram …….Petitioner Versus HP State Forest Corporation & Anr. … 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. Vijay K.Arora, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hitansh Raj, Ms. Aastha Kohli & Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocates. _______________________________________________________ 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 06.05.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.7431 of 2025, titled as Munshi Ram Vs. HP State Forest Corporation & Anr. 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 Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Surajmani 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. Hitansh Raj, Advocate, 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 two weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by learned counsel for the respondents, 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 two 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 law, is taken towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 29, 2025 (sunil)