2025:HHC:13039 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.402 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Gian Chand ……...Petitioner Versus Nipun Jindal …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in the order/judgment dated 30.07.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6976 of 2024, titled as Gian Chand Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment alleged to have been violated, reveals that this Court, having taken note of the undertaking made by the respondent to decide the representation filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks, disposed of the aforesaid petition with a direction to do 2 the needful. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above, respondent failed to do the needful in afore terms, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, learned counsel, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondent, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid orders alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of two weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondent to do the needful, positively within a period of two 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 against erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. May 07, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge