IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.584 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Devinder Singh …….Petitioner Versus Siddhartha Acharya … Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________ 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 respondent for his having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 04.06.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 9277 of 2025, titled Devinder Singh vs. Dr. YSPUHF and another 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondent to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of ten days. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondent failed to do the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of two days from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned counsel for the respondent, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly, same are closed with the direction to the respondent to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 4.6.2025, positively within a period of two days, if not already done, failing which, he would further aggravate the contempt. Petitioner is at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case aforesaid judgment is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken against the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondent is hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June16,2025 (shankar)