IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 2225 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Madhvi Sharma …….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. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. _______________________________________________________ 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 19.10.2023 passed by this Court in CWP No. 2883 of 2021, titled Manju Bhardwaj and others 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 case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 7.8.2023 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(Civil) No.10399 of 2020, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Sheela Devi and judgment dated 16.9.2023 passed by 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.844 of 2019, titled Hem Raj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters within a period of four weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note 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 19.10.2023 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 November 12,2025 (shankar)