IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 809 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Som Raj & Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus Dr. Gopal Beri …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh K.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, & Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 24.04.2025, rendered in CWP No.2153 of 2023 titled as Som Raj & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., whereby this Court, while disposing the petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Principal Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6443 of 2021, titled as Babu Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., within a period of six weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the 2 respondent for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondent, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now, judgment, alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be positively complied with within a period of two weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondent is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, failing which, he would 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 the erring official. Notices issued to the respondent is discharged. August 04, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Sunil Judge