IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 833 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Indu Mati ……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Shashwat, Advocate. For the respondents: 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 petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 03.09.2024, rendered in CWP No.9216 of 2024 titled as Indu Mati Vs. State of HP & Ors.. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that this Court having taken note of the statement made by learned Additional Advocate General that representation made by the petitioner shall be decided within a period of eight weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for 2 doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of two weeks from today. 4. 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 as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated, positively within a period of two weeks from today, if not already done, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken against erring officials. August 18, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Sunil Judge