Ms. Kiran Negi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. CMP No.11747 of 2025 in CWP No.6508 of 2025 28.05.2025 Present: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Sr. Advocate, with M/s Ajay Kumar Shama and Vivekanand, Advocates, for the non-applicant/petitioner. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Shalav Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 3 and 4 and for the applicant in CMP No.11747 of 2025. Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, for non-applicant/ respondent No.2. C MP No.11747 of 2025 By way of this application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. To take the Sue-motu cognizance of the matter pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice. ii. To direct the initiation of legal proceedings using Shri Sudheer Sharma, Member of the Legislative Assembly (MIA), other associated persons as well certain social media platforms for violating the Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings Rules of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, 2023, under the relevant provisions of the Indian Copyright Act 1957, Information Technology Act, 2000, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. iii. To Issue an order directing the immediate removal of the said video from all platforms where it has been uploaded or shared, on all social media platforms, to prevent further violation of the Applicant's fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution and to uphold the sanctity of the court's proceedings.” Having heard learned Advocate General and taking into consideration the fact that the writ petition already stands disposed of, this Court is of the considered view that it has become functuous officio, as far as the issues raised in the application are concerned. In case the applicant has any grievance, he is well advised to independently approach the appropriate Court/Fora by way of an appropriate application or appropriate petition for the redressal of the said grievance(s). However, the prayer made by learned Advocate General that this Court should suo motu take cognizance of the events narrated in the application is rejected. The application is dismissed. However, this Court has not made any observation on the merit of the issues urged in the application. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 28, 2025 (Rishi)