IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.717 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.7.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Narender Kumar and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Smt. Rakhil Kahlon and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Daleep singh Kaith, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 1.5.2025, passed in CWP No. 3975 of 2025 titled as Narender Kumar and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide representation of the petitioners in light of judgment dated 7.11.2024 passed in CWP No. 8839 of 2023, titled Pushap Kumar and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2 and Ors. and judgment dated 29.11.2024, passed in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., passed by coordinate Benches of this Court, within four weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioners are 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 three 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 three weeks, 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. July 23, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge