IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 749 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.09.2025 ___________________________________________________________ Mukesh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Rakhil Kahlon & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. D. S. Kaith, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, 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 intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 21.04.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No. 5521 of 2024, titled Mukesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 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 judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 5077 of 2020, titled as Dila Ram Vs. State of H.P. & 2 Ors., within a period of six 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 order dated 07.08.2025 placed on record by learned Additional Advocate General vis-a-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 representation of the petitioner in the light of judgment, referred hereinabove, have rejected the same. Since, there was only direction to consider the case of the petitioner in light of afore judgment, 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 in purported compliance of the judgment alleged to have been violated. September 16, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Shamsh Tabrez) Judge