IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.918 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Parkash Chand …….Petitioner Versus Er. R.K. Verma … Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(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 intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/ order dated 25.07.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 12052 of 2025, titled Parkash Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of two 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondent failed to do the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of two weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly, same are closed with the direction to the respondent to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 25.07.2025, positively within a period of two weeks, if not already done, failing which, he would further aggravate the contempt. Petitioner is at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case aforesaid judgment is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken against the erring officials. Notice issued to the respondent is hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 30,2025 (shankar)