IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1558 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.01.2026 ___________________________________________________________ Pooja ……...Petitioner Versus Smt. Anju Sharma …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Happy Thakur, 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 respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 10.10.2025, rendered in CWP No.15949 of 2025, whereby this Court passed the following order: “3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Mohit Sharma case (supra). Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate 2 proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending 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 respondent for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondent, 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. 4. 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, respondent- contemnor is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks, failing which respondent 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. January 06, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge