IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 886 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rakesh Kumar & Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus Anju Sharma & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Happy Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: 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 respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 02.04.2025, rendered in CWP No.4781 of 2025, titled as Rakesh Kumar & another Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioners, directed the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioners within six weeks in light of judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP NO. 1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2 Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the 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 respondents, 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, respondents are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of two 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 respondents are discharged. August 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge