IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 1698 of 2025 CWP No. 9531 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ashok Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant petition, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 17.07.2014, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, states that he is not 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment supra. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 02, 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)