IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 1973 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.10.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Megh Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for implementation and execution of order/judgment dated 20.3.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.3859 of 2025, titled Megh Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide representation of the petitioner in light of judgments passed in CWP No. 2804 of 2012, titled as Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and CWP No. 11506 of 2011 titled as Laxmi 2 Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., within a period of six weeks. 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. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for 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 two weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by 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 alleged to have been violated within a period of two 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 implementation of the order/judgment. October 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge