IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1062 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.10.2025 ___________________________________________________________ Monika Thakur ……...Petitioner Versus Sh. Rakesh Kanwar and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ 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 19.09.2024, rendered in CWP No.10481 of 2024, whereby this Court passed the following order: “3. This petition, accordingly, as prayed for, is disposed of with the direction that let representation of the petitioner be decided, in the light of the averments made therein as well as the judgment being relied upon by the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks’ by the Competent Authority. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also 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 2 the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of 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 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 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. October 06, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge