Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14319 (HP)

NARAYAN DUTT v. NIPUN JINDAL

COPC/479/2025 · 2025-05-28

Sandeep Sharma

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 479 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Narayan Dutt ……...Petitioners Versus Nipun Jindal. …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having not complied with mandate contained in the judgment dated 10.12.20245 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 14963 of 2024 titled as Sh. Narayan Dutt Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors, whereby direction came to be issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner within a period of 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 2. 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. 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, 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 he 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 official. May 28 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge