IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 1025 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.9.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Smt. Madhu Mahajan and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 27.6.2025 passed in CWP No. 964 of 2020, titled as Madhu Mahajan and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide case of the petitioners in light of judgment dated 17.10.2023, passed in CWP No. 7526 of 2021, titled Laiq Ram Sharma and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, which further came to be upheld by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 311 of 2024, titled State of 2 Himachal Pradesh and another v. Laiq Ram Sharma and Anr., lead case whereof is LPA No. 356 of 2024, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Kartar Chand, within a period of four weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioners are 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 two 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 petitioners would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. September 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge