IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 807 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sapna Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus Ashwani Kumar & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Happy Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record copy of office order dated 17.05.2025, issued under the signatures of Under Secretary (NGE), HPSEB Ltd., Shimla, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondents, states that in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated, respondents, after having considered the case of the petitioner, have rejected the representation. 2. Having perused aforesaid office order, which is taken on record vis-à-vis directions contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, this Court is persuaded to agree with the aforesaid contention raised at the behest of the respondents. Though, Mr. Happy Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, attempted to argue that impugned order passed in purported compliance is not in conformity with the mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, but since there was only direction to consider the 2 case of the petitioner and respondents, after having considered the case of the petitioner, have rejected the representation, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings. Needless to say, aforesaid proceedings were initiated in order to ensure strict compliance of the mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated and correctness of the order passed in purported compliance can only be ascertained in appropriate proceedings, if any, filed by the petitioner. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file substantive writ in appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge to order passed in purported compliance, if advised. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. August 04, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Sunil Judge