IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.616 of 2024 Date of Decision: 2.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dhyan Prakash alias Amar Singh 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. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 13.5.2024, passed in CWP No. 1471 of 2024 (Dhyan Prakash alias Amar Singh and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. alongwith connected matters), whereby direction came to be issued to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statue vis-à-vis land of the petitioner and thereafter, just and fair compensation be awarded to 2 them. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioners are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondent No.3 has filed reply, wherein it has been stated that Public Works Department has filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, laying therein challenge to judgment alleged to have been violated. Neither copy of stay order, if any, granted by the Division Bench of this Court has been placed on record nor till date, mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, has been implemented. Needless to say, till the time judgment alleged to have been violated is not varied, modified or set-aside by the superior court of law, respondents are under obligation to implement the same. Mere pendency of the LPA may not be sufficient for this Court to accept the prayer made by the petitioner to defer the matter to some other date, especially when it is quite apparent from the record that more than one year has passed after passing of the judgment alleged to have been violated, but till date, no steps have been taken by the respondents to comply with judgment. Notice in the case at hand was issued on 23.10.2024 and thereafter on two occasions, matter was listed before this Court and every time on the 3 vehement request of learned Additional Advocate General, matter was adjourned, enabling the respondents to comply with mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, however, nothing has been done till date and as such, this court is prima-facie convinced that respondents have committed the contempt of court and need to be dealt with in accordance with law. However, learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that now on account of non-grant of stay in LPA filed by the department, respondents have no option, but to implement the judgment and as such, some time may be given to do the needful. 3. Taking note of the aforesaid statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General, this court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with the direction to the respondents to ensure that in any eventuality, needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within eight weeks, failing which respondents would further aggravate the contempt and respondents would be at liberty to get the instant case revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. June 2, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge