IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 2177 of 2026 Date of Decision: 21.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Meena Devi & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Shivani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals 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 petitioners for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/ execute the order/judgment dated 23.08.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 8643 of 2024, titled Banita Devi and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners in light of judgment dated 03.08.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled Taj Mohammad vs. State of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Himachal Pradesh and others, within a period of three weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents have failed to do so, petitioners 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 eight 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 23.08.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, positively within a period of eight weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioners 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 21,2026 (shankar)