Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21100 (HP)

BALBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER v. RAKESH KANWAR

COPC/821/2025 · 2025-08-06

Sandeep Sharma

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 821 of 2025 Date of Decision: 6.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Balbir Singh and Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 13.5.2025 passed in CWP No. 7650 of 2025, titled as Balbir Singh and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners within six weeks. Since despite repeated 2 requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioners are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. B.C Verma, 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- contemnor 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 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. August 6, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge