IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 867 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Ashish Kohli …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with 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 22.05.2025, rendered in CWP No.8498 of 2025, titled as Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioners, directed the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners within a period of six weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the 2 needful, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. B.C.Verma, 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 three 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, respondents are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks from today, 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. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. August 18, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge