IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.649 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.07.2025 ___________________________________________________________ Reena Devi ……...Petitioner Versus Mr. Ashish Kohli …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 10.01.2025, rendered in CWP No.850 of 2025, whereby this Court passed the following order: “3. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner at Annexure P-9, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner.” 2. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondent for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent, 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. 4. 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, respondent-contemnor is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, failing which he 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 official. July 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge