2025:HHC:147 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.615 of 2024 Date of Decision: 01.01.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ram Prakash & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Onkar Chand Sharma & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents/ State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No. 1 & 4 have filed reply, wherein attempt has been to defeat the rightful claim of the petitioner on the pretext that judgment laid challenge in the instant proceedings has already been laid challenge by way of a Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making available copy of judgment dated 06.12.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 438 of 2024 case titled State of HP & Ors. Vs. Shiv Ram, states that since LPA filed by the respondents in one of the petition, which was also disposed of vide judgment, alleged to have 2025:HHC:147 been violated, ground of filing LPA as taken by the respondents in the instant case is of no consequence. 3. After having perused aforesaid judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly concedes that respondents have no option, but to implement the judgment. 4. Though having taken note of dismissal of LPA filed in one of the connected matter, there appears to be no justification to grant further time, but on the vehement request and undertaking given by the learned Additional Advocate General that in any eventuality judgment, alleged to have been violated, shall be complied within a period of eight weeks, this court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to comply with the mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of eight weeks, failing which, they would further 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 erring official. January 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2