IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1535 of 2025 Date of Decision: 2.1.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Sudesh Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus Dr. Amarjeet K. Sharma …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 16.9.2025 passed in CWP No. 14937 of 2025, titled as Sudesh Kumari v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide pending representation of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 7.4.2025 passed in CWP No. 4830 of 2023, titled as “Inder Singh Thakur and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. (alongwith connected matter), and in COPC No .722 of 2024 in CWP No. 2056 of 2023, 2 titled as “Ghanshyam Dass and Ors. v. Mr. Devesh Kumar and Ors.” within six weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that though he has every reason to 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 the 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 three 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 officials. January 2, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge