Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18982 (HP)

VIDHAN SHARMA v. RAKESH KANWAR AND OTHERS

COPC/774/2025 · 2025-08-27

Ajay Mohan Goel

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA COPC No.774 of 2025 Decided on 27th August, 2025 Vidhan Sharma …Petitioner Versus Sh. Rakesh Kanwar and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner alleges willful disobedience of judgment dated 24.04.2025, passed by this Court in CWPOA No.4978 of 2019. 2. A perusal of the judgment demonstrates that the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench was pleased to direct the respondents to take a final decision in the case of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of the order strictly in terms of the observations made in the order and thereafter the matter was ordered to be listed for compliance on 19.06.2025. 2 3. An order was passed by the Authority on 18.06.2025 and thereafter, when the matter was listed before the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench on 19.06.2025, the following order was passed:- “The respondents have filed a copy of order dated 18.06.2025, whereby the case of the petitioner has been considered and rejected. Thus, no further orders are required to be passed in this petition. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy, in accordance with law.” 4. Now, by way of this contempt petition, the petitioner alleges that in terms of order dated 18.06.2025, the judgment has not been complied with. 5. This Court is of the considered view that when the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench was pleased to observe that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 18.06.2025, he can avail appropriate legal remedy in accordance with law, now the petitioner cannot rake up this issue by way of a contempt petition and if so advised, he may assail the said order in accordance with law. 3 5. Accordingly, these proceedings are closed, but with liberty to the petitioner that if so advised, he may assail the order dated 18.06.2025, passed by the authority in accordance with law. Notice stands discharged. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 27, 2025 (Vinod)