IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 757 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Mukesh Kumar & Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 07.04.2025, rendered in CWP No.5042 of 2025, titled as Mukesh Kumar and another Vs. State of H.P. and another, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioners, directed the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-8 Colly) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2 2. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and 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 two weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, they would aggravate the contempt and petitioners would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. Notice issued to the respondents are discharged. July 29, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge