IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1924 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.10.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Kushal ……...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravi Patial, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant execution petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for execution and implementation of judgment dated 27.05.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.8759 of 2025, whereby this Court passed the following order: “3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority within a period of three weeks for redressal of his grievance, which shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously within a period of six weeks in light of aforesaid judgment. Ordered accordingly. 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 speaking order thereafter. Applications, if any, stand disposed of.” 2. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment sought to be executed, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of three weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment sought to be executed, within a period of three weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken towards the implementation of the order/judgment. October 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge