IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.920 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.09.2025 __________________________________________________________________________ Sh. Pawan Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Sh. Nipul Jindal and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj and Mr. Yash Raj Bhardwaj, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 16.06.2025, rendered in CWP No.9553 of 2025, whereby this Court passed the following order: “3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority within a period of one week for redressal of his grievance, which shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously within a period of four weeks in light of aforesaid judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass 2 speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.” 2. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, 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. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel representing the respondents, 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 respondents 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. September 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge