IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.765 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Aman Kumar Saroch …….Petitioner Versus Sudha Devi and another … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 23.04.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 9558 of 2023, titlted Birender Singh Guleria and others vs. The Secretary Higher Education and others alongwith connected matters. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in terms of the judgments passed by 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4299 of 2019, titled Pushpa Devi vs. Himachal Pradesh University, in CWP No. 5090 of 2022, titled Umesh Jaswal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and in CWPOA No.1077 of 2019, titled Nitin Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, within a period of four weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents failed to do the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Having carefully perused the communication dated 16.06.2025(Annexure C-2) annexed with the petition vis-à-vis judgment alleged to have been violated, this Court finds that in terms of the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, respondents after having considered the case of the petitioner in light of judgments, referred hereinabove, have rejected the same. Since, there was only direction to consider the case of the petitioner in light of afore judgments, no action of the respondents can be said to be contemptuous. 4. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present proceedings and accordingly same are closed. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge to the order passed 3 in purported compliance of the judgment alleged to have been violated. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 28,2025 (shankar)