IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.1843 of 2026 Date of Decision: 03.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Prem Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ishneet Rattan, Advocate vice Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, 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 23.07.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.11831 of 2025, titled as Prem Singh Vs. State of H.P & Others. 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 that benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner under Satya Devi’s case shall abide by the outcome of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 11306 of 2025, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Inder 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Pal, instituted by the respondents against the common judgment rendered in Satya Devi’s case. 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 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 September 03, 2026 (sunil)