IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.2201 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ramla Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondent s Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Dhanvanti & Ms. Anuja Mehta, proxy counsel. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates 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 11.04.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.5969 of 2025, titled as Ramla Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the present proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within four weeks in light of judgment dated 22.02.2022, passed in CWP No.2711 of 2017, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 titled as Baldev Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. along with connected matter. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note 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 three 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 three weeks from today, 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 November 10, 2025 (sunil)