IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 2453 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Reeta Devi …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Proxy Counsel vice Mr. Mukul Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. _______________________________________________________ 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 to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 19.03.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3711 of 2025, titled Reeta Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 20.01.2025 in light of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 7602 of 2010, titled Om Parkash vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 and others and connected matters, within a period of six weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents have failed to do so, petitioner have 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 judgment/ order 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 fair statement made 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 in terms of order/judgment dated 19.03.2025 passed by this Court, positively within a period of three 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 10,2025 (shankar)