IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.434 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.05.2025 __________________________________________________________________________ Prithvi Raj ……...Petitioner Versus Dr. Rajeev Kumar and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. S.S. Panta, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 21.10.2024, rendered in CWP No.11722 of 2024, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order: “4. The prayer is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Having regard with the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to decide the case of the petitioner for the reliefs prayed for by him in light of the aforesaid judgments in accordance with law. This entire exercise shall be carried out within six weeks from today. Copy of the decision so taken be also communicated to the petitioner. All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.” 2 2. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. S.S. Panta, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that though he has every reason to presume that by now, judgment alleged to have been violated must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be positively complied with within a period of two weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel representing the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents-contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, failing which respondents would aggravate the contempt and petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived, so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. May 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge