IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 845 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar Guleria ……...Petitioner Versus G.S.Negi …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Devender K.Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 30.05.2025, rendered in CWP No.8085 of 2025, titled as Vinod Kumar Guleria Vs. Himachal Pradesh University and Another, whereby this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondent-University to ensure that approval for placing the matter for upgradation is taken by Vive Chancellor within a period of one week and thereafter, in any eventuality, matter is placed before the Finance Committee/ Executive Committee, within a period of four weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid directions, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondent for doing 2 the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Devender K.Sharma, Advocate, 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 two weeks. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned counsel for the respondent, 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 two 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 official. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. August 11, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Sunil Judge