IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1890 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.10.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rajender Kumar and Another ……...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Vijay Kumar, 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 petitioners for execution and implementation of judgment dated 10.04.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.3847 of 2024, 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 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Surajmani case (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 petitioners and pass speaking order thereafter.” 2. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioners have 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 four 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 four weeks, failing which petitioners 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 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge