IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 912 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Indra Rathour ……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. 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, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 10.12.2024 passed in CWP No. 1376 of 2024, titled as Indra Rathour v. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide case of the 2 petitioner in light of judgment dated 28.3.2024 passed in CWPOA No. 83 of 2020, titled as Anil Kumar Kohli v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., within two months. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is 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 three 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 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. August 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge