IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 896 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kamla Devi ……...Petitioner Versus Dr. Nipun Jindal …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, 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 17.06.2025, rendered in CWP No.9614 of 2025, titled as Kamla Devi Vs. HRTC & Anr, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, permitted petitioner to make representation to the respondent-competent authority within two weeks for the redressal of her grievance. Coordinate Bench of this Court further directed the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within six weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken 2 at the behest of the respondent for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, 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 from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned counsel for the respondents, 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 from today, 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. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. August 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge