IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No. 2316 of 2026 Date of Decision: 28.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Tapender Singh & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Anshul Jairath, 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 28.11.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 18517 of 2025, titled Shri Tapender Singh 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 this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 7602 of 2010, titled Om Parkash vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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, 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 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 28.11.2025 passed by this Court, positively within a period of three 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 28,2026 (shankar)