IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.901 of 2025 Decided on: 7th January, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Om Kumari …..Petitioner Versus Sh. Rakesh Kanwar and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner alleges violation of Smt. Om Kumari Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.2. Operative portion of the decision reads as under:- “3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-9) in light of afore judgments expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.” 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 CWP No.4253 of 2024, decided on 26.06.2025 2 2. In the aforesaid decision, directions were issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the decision rendered in Laiq Ram Sharma and another Versus State of H.P. and another3, as affirmed in State of H.P. & Anr. vs. Kartar Chand & Anr.4 and The State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Versus Laiq Ram Sharma & Ors.5. 3. Respondents have filed the compliance affidavit, as per which, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner alongwith others including Sh. Laiq Ram Sharma, who was the lead petitioner in Laiq Ram Sharma3 and rejected the same under office order dated 03.01.2026. Copy of the said office order has also been appended alongwith the compliance affidavit. In view of the office order issued by the respondents on 03.01.2026, considering and rejecting the case of the petitioner as also that of Sh. Laiq Ram Sharma, the present contempt proceedings are closed. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. Liberty is, however, reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for the redressal of her 3 CWP No.7526 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 17.10.2023 4 LPA No.356 of 2024, decided alongwith connected matters on 09.01.2025 5 Special Leave to Appeal(C) No(s).8418-8420/2025, decided on 27.03.2025 3 surviving grievances including against the consideration order passed by the respondents. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 07, 2026 Judge Mukesh