Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Execution Petition No. 2401 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sonia Dewan
…….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Purohit, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional 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 to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 28.02.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 167 of 2025, titled Sonia Dewan 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 the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 842 of 2017, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Sardari Lal and another alongwith connected matters, within a period of six weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
hereinabove, respondents have failed to do so, 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 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 28.02.2025 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 03,2025 (shankar)