IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1528 of 2025 Date of Decision: 2.1.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Parmila Devi ……...Petitioner Versus Dr. Abhishek Jain and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 8.10.2025 passed in CWP No. 15821 of 2025, titled as Parmila Devi and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide pending representation of the petitioners in light of judgment dated 29.11.2024, rendered in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, Mohit Sharma and Anr. v. State of 2 Himachal Pradesh and Ors. within six weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, 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. 3. 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, respondents- contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks, failing which they 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 2, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge