IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.957 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.09.2025 ___________________________________________________________ Khem Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Nipun Jindal …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ 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 18.12.2024, rendered in CWP No.15441 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 Annexure P-1 of the petitioner be decided by the Competent Authority, in the light of the averments made therein as well as judgment, if any, being relied upon by the petitioner, by passing a speaking order, within a period of eight weeks’ from today, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly” 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. 2 3. Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of 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 two weeks’ from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel representing the respondent, 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 two weeks, failing which he 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 11, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge