IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 689 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Prem Chand & Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus Rakhil Kahlon & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Ms. Saroj, Advocate, vice Mr. D.S.Kaith, Advocate. For the respondents: 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 01.05.2025, rendered in CWP No.3981 of 2025 titled as Prem Chand and Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioners, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-10) in light of judgment passed in CWP No. 8839 of 2023, titled as Pushap Kumar and Ors V. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and judgment passed in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of Himachal 2 Pradesh and Ors. within four 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. Mr. Vishal Panwar, 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 22, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge