IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1557 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sumit Kumar …….Petitioner Versus C. Paulrasu … Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ram Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional 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 respondent for his having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 17.10.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 16477 of 2025 titled Sumit Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 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 light of judgment dated 23.09.2025 passed in CWP No. 4971 of 2024, titled as Nitin Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, within a period of six weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 hereinabove, respondent failed to do the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of six weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly, same are closed with the direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 17.10.2025, positively within a period of six weeks, if not already done, failing which, he would further aggravate the contempt. Petitioner is at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case aforesaid judgment is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken against the erring officials. Notice issued to the respondent is hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 05, 2026 (shankar)