NISHANT SHARMA AND OTHERS v. RAKESH KANWAR AND ANOTHER
CMP/14045/2025 · 2025-08-14
Sandeep Sharma
Review Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17077 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17077 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
NISHANT SHARMA AND OTHERS Versus RAKESH KANWAR AND ANOTHER CMP-14045 of 2025 in COPC - 427 of 2025 14.08.2025 Present: Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. While placing on record communication dated August, 2025, issued under the signatures of State Project Director (SS), Himachal Pradesh, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, stands complied with and as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings.
2. Having perused aforesaid communication as well as letter dated 12.08.2025, annexed with the aforesaid communication, which are taken on record, this Court finds that Government has decided to implement the judgment dated 17.12.2021 passed in CWP No.1755 of 2021 and
judgment dated 07.05.2025 passed in COPC No.428 of 2025, titled Nirmal Kumar and Others Vs. Rakesh Kanwar and Others.
3. Though
State
Project
Director
vide communication dated 08.08.2025 has been already directed to implement the judgment, subject to final outcome of the
legal remedy, which may be availed by the State, but since it is not in dispute that review petition, having been filed by the State already stands disposed of, in the opinion of this Court no legal remedy exists.
4. Nonetheless, since judgment in question stands complied with, no action of respondents can be said to be contumacious and accordingly the present application is
disposed of, with a direction to State Project Director to ensure that needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated, if not already done, is done expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the contempt petition revived, enabling this Court to pass appropriate orders against the erring officials. Application stands disposed of. August 14, 2025
(Sandeep Sharma),
(Rajeev Raturi) Judge