IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.513 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Jai Singh …….Petitioner Versus Onkar Chand Sharma & another … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Dr. Lalit K. 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 not complied with the mandate contained in the judgment dated 13.05.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No. 5206 of 2021, titled Jai Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others(Annexure C-2), whereby direction came to be issued to Additional Chief Secretary(Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to issue clarification/instruction in terms of communication dated 29.04.2007, issued under the signature of Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, enabling aforesaid authority to pass appropriate orders to comply with 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the order dated 20.07.2007 passed by Commissioner, Mandi Division, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in case No.180 of 2007, titled Jai Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh through Deputy Commissioner, Mandi and another. Since despite repeated reminders, needful, in terms of aforesaid judgment, never came to be done at the behest of the respondents, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. This Court having taken note of averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, called upon learned Additional Advocate General to file compliance affidavit. Pursuant to order dated 03.06.2025, Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh filed reply, but this Court being not satisfied with the explanation rendered on record by aforesaid authority with regard to delay in implementation of the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, passed order dated 21.07.2025, thereby calling upon aforesaid authority to rectify its mistake and do the needful strictly in terms of mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated. 3. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned Advocate General made available instructions dated 02.08.2025, issued under the signatures of Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi enclosing therewith certain documents, which are taken on record, to state that mandate contained in the judgment alleged to 3 have been violated stands duly complied with. He states that in terms of the direction contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, Additional Chief Secretary(Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide communication dated 30.07.2025, addressed to Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, issued clarification/instructions in terms of communication dated 29.04.2017, issued under the signatures of Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, enabling him to pass appropriate orders to comply with the order dated 20.07.2007 passed by Commissioner, Mandi Division, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in case No.180 of 2007, titled Jai Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh through Deputy Commissioner, Mandi and another. Learned Advocate General further states that pursuant to aforesaid order passed by Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Deputy Commissioner, Mandi vide order dated 31.07.2025 has passed detailed order, thereby holding that order dated 20.07.2007 passed by Commissioner, Mandi Division, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh is not sustainable as per the instructions of the Government dated 04.03.1995 and cannot be implemented. 4. Having perused aforesaid communication as well as documents annexed therewith vis-à-vis mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned Advocate General for the reason that this Court 4 had only directed Additional Chief Secretary(Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to issue clarification/instructions in terms of communication dated 29.04.2007, issued under the signature of Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, enabling him to pass appropriate orders to comply with the order dated 20.07.2007 passed by Commissioner, Mandi Division, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in case No.180 of 2007. Both the Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and Deputy Commissioner, Mandi in terms of the directions contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated have complied with the order, as has been taken note hereinabove. 5. Though, at this stage, Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, attempted to argue that compliance otherwise sought to be placed on record is not in conformity with the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that instant proceedings are meant only to ensure compliance, which in the case at hand has been done by the respondents. Correctness of the order passed in purported compliance of the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated cannot be gone into in the instant proceedings, rather for that purpose, petitioner being aggrieved, if any, is required to file appropriate proceedings in 5 appropriate Court of law. Moreover, this Court finds that respondents herein, in terms of the direction contained in para-4 of the judgment alleged to have been violated, were not required to pass any consideration order, rather this Court had firstly directed Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to issue clarification or impart instructions in terms of communication dated 29.04.2017 to Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, enabling him to comply with the order dated 20.07.2007. Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, after having received clarification, has already passed order dated 31.07.2025, holding that order dated 20.7.2007 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi is not sustainable and as such, cannot be implemented. 6. For the detailed reasons stated hereinabove, no action of the respondents can be said to be contemptuous and as such, there appears to be no justification to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly same are closed. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge to the order passed in purported compliance of the judgment alleged to have been violated, if so advised. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 05, 2025 (shankar)