IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 701 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.7.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Naresh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Munish Datwalia and Mr. Ram Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 16.5.2025 passed in CWP No. 8029 of 2025, titled as Naresh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, whereby this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 26.12.2019 passed by Division Bench 2 of this Court in CWPOA No. 195 of 2019, titled Sheela Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., within eight weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. B.C Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that though he has every reason to 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 the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents- contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, failing which they would aggravate the contempt and petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. July 23, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge