IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 728 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Veena Devi ……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rocky and Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (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 willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 23.05.2025, rendered in CWP No.8582 of 2025, titled as Veena Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Anr., whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the decision rendered in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020 titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. along with connected matters within three weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, 2 came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and 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 four weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, they 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 officials. Notice issued to the respondents are discharged. July 24, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge