IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 1608 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ashwani Kumar & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul and Ms. Sheetal Kaul, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and 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 to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 20.03.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3873 of 2025, titled Ashwani Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners in light of judgment dated 7.7.2023 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2500 of 2021 titled Ranjit Singh and others vs. State of Himachal 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, within a period of four weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents have failed to do so, 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 judgment/ order 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 fair statement made 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 in terms of order/judgment dated 20.03.2025 passed by this Court, positively within a period of two 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 towards implementation of the judgment/ order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 30,2025 (shankar)