IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 913 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Vishal Sood and Ors. ……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kaul and Ms. Sheetal Kaul, 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 respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 18.12.2024 passed in CWP No. 15457 of 2024, titled as Vishal Sood and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide 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 two 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, respondents- contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, 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. August 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge