IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2426 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sh. Guddu Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Singh Jagota, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy 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 for implementation and execution of the order/judgment dated 20.10.2023 passed by this Court in CWP No.7931 of 2023, titled as Guddu Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. alongwith connected matter, whereby afore petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of judgment LPA No.165 of 2021, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Surajmani and Another. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 herein above, respondents failed to comply with the judgment, 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 orders, sought to be executed, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of two weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given 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, positively within a period of two 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 December 08, 2025 (sunil)