IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 620 of 2024 Date of Decision: 25.2.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Siri Ram and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Onkar Chand Sharma and 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. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having not complied with mandate contained in the judgment dated 16.3.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of his Court in CWP No. 3174 of 2023 titled as Siri Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., whereby specific direction came to be issued to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings qua the land of the petitioners used for construction of the road under the relevant rules within two months. Since despite repeated requests, no steps ever came to be 2 taken at the behest of the respondents to comply with the aforesaid judgment, petitioners are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 have filed reply, perusal whereof reveals that no plausible explanation has been rendered on record qua the delay in implementing the judgment. It is averred in the afore reply that since respondent No.1 has already assailed the judgment alleged to have been violated, mandate contained in the same, cannot be complied with. 3. During the course of the arguments, Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner made available copy of judgment dated 21.12.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 485 of 2024 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Siri Ram and Ors., perusal whereof clearly reveals that LPA having been filed by the petitioners laying therein challenge to judgment alleged to have been violated has been already dismissed. If it is so, respondents have no option but to implement the judgment alleged to have been violated. 4. Before further orders could be passed by this Court in the instant proceedings, learned Additional Advocate General fairly stated that 3 mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, if not already complied with, shall be complied with expeditiously. 5. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General coupled with the fact that LPA having been filed by the respondent State laying therein challenge to judgment alleged to have been violated stands dismissed, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure compliance of the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated within three months, failing which they would aggravate the contempt and petitioners would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. February 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge