IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1556 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.01.2026 ___________________________________________________________ Dhan Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Sh. Rahul Sood …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Y.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ 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 respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 05.05.2025, rendered in CWP No.6339 of 2024, whereby this Court passed the following order: “5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. 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 respondent for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondent, 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 three weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondent- contemnor is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks, failing which respondent 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. January 06, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge