IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1832 of 2026 Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Roshan Lal …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with 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 16.12.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.7451 of 2023, titled as Roshan Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others., whereby afore petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 01.12.2023 passed in CWP No. 3126 of 2021, titled as Mukesh Thakur and other Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another. within four weeks. Since, despite 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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. 2. 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 four weeks from today. 3. 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 four 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 September 03, 2026 (sunil)