IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.621 of 2024 Date of Decision: 21.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sheesh Ram ……...Petitioner Versus Onkar Chand Sharma and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with 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) Reply filed on behalf of the respondents, if perused in its entirety clearly reveals that sole reason assigned on record for not implementing the judgment alleged to have been violated is filing of LPA by State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment alleged to have been violated. During proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner made available copy of judgment dated 19.3.2025, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, whereby LPA having been filed the respondents herein stands dismissed. If it is so, respondents have no option, but to implement the judgment alleged to have been violated. 2 2. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that in one of the case i.e. COPC No. 613 of 2024, titled Ranveer and Ors. v. Onkar Chand Sharma and Ors., a statement came to be made on behalf of the respondents/State of Himachal Pradesh that mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, if not already complied with, shall be complied with expeditiously and as such, this Court vide order dated 6.3.2025, disposed of the contempt petition with direction to the respondents in that case to complete acquisition proceedings within four months. Since Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh in Ranveer’s case (supra) was dismissed vide common judgment dated 19.3.2025, the respondents are under obligation to implement the judgment alleged to have been violated. 3. Faced with aforesaid situation, learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, if not already complied with, shall be complied with within four months. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to ensure compliance of the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated within four months, failing which 3 petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. March 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge