IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.653 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Amit Gautam …….Petitioner Versus Nipul Jindal & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having violated the mandate contained in the judgment dated 29.08.2024 passed in CWP No. 9967 of 2023, whereby direction was issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in light of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 2110 of 2019, titled Rajinder Kumar vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation. Since needful was not done within stipulated time, petitioner, at first instance, filed petition bearing Ex. Petition No.87 of 2025, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 18.03.2025 with further direction to the respondents to do the needful within three weeks. Since despite there being order passed in afore execution petition, respondents failed to comply with the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, petitioner was compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Before notice, if any, could be issued to the respondents in the instant proceedings, Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondents, made available copy of order dated 03.04.2025 passed by competent authority, to state that case of the petitioner was considered in light of judgment passed by this Court in Rajinder Kumar’s case (supra), but for the reason enumerated in the aforesaid order, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for regularization has not been accepted. Since there was only direction to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization and respondents after having considered the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Rajinder Kumar’s case(supra) has rejected the case of the petitioner, no action of the respondents can be said to be contemptuous, rather petitioner being aggrieved, if any, of order dated 03.04.2025 passed in purported compliance of the judgment alleged to have been violated, is expected to file substantive petition in the competent court of law. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as having rendered infructuous. Notice issued to the respondents are hereby discharged However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of 3 law laying therein challenge to the order passed in purported compliance of the judgment alleged to have been violated. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 17,2025 (shankar)