IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 2159 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Reema Devi …….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. Sohail Khan, proxy counsel vice Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. _______________________________________________________ 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 respondent to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 18.09.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 15095 of 2025, titled as Reema Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks in light of judgment dated 30.07.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 10589 of 2025, titled Archana Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 needful has not been done by the respondents within the stipulated time, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. 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 one week 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 18.09.2025 passed by this Court, positively within a period of one week, 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. List for compliance on 27.10.2025. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 16,2025 (shankar)