IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 2709 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Hans Raj …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ 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 to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 03.10.2023 passed by this Court in CWP No. 1079 of 2023, titled Hans Raj 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 case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 7.4.2016 passed in CWP No. 2467 of 2015, titled Villam Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and judgment dated 5.1.2022 passed in CWPOA No.7915 of 2019, titled Smt. Shyama Ran vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, within a period of four weeks. Since, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents have failed to do so, 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 judgment/ order 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 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 03.10.2023 passed by this Court, positively within a period of three weeks, 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 January 05,2026 (shankar)