IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.453 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajender Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar & others … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 23.12.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 14009 of 2024, titled Sh. Rajender Kumar vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner within 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 a period of eight weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents failed to do the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order 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 fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly, same are closed with the direction to the respondent to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 23.12.2024, positively within a period of two weeks, if not already done, failing which, they would further aggravate the contempt. Petitioner is at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case aforesaid judgment is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken against the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 16,2025 (shankar)