IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 844 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rajeev Gautam & 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 20.05.2025, rendered in CWP No.8114 of 2025, titled as Rajeev Chauhan and others Vs. State of H.P. and another, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioners, directed respondent No. 2/competent authority to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P-2 Colly), in accordance with law as well as taking note of judgment dated 07.04.2025 passed in CWP No. 4830 of 2023, titled as Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal 2 Pradesh & Ors. 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 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