IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 771 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Satish Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General 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 respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 23.04.2025, rendered in CWP No.6302 of 2025, titled as Satish Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondent for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2 2. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondent, 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 three 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, respondent is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks from today, failing which, he 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 official. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. July 29, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge