IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.942 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.09.2025 ___________________________________________________________ Ashok Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Sh. Rakesh Kanwar and Another …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________________ 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 09.07.2025, rendered in CWP No.10982 of 2025, whereby this Court passed the following order: “3. Looking to the nature of the grievance raised in this writ petition, it would in the interest of justice to direct Competent Authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner in accordance with law and as per applicable policy within a period of three weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner.” 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 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 one week 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, respondents-contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of one week, 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. September 05, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge