IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1006 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.09.2025 ___________________________________________________________ Anil Kumar Guleria and Others ……...Petitioners Versus Sh. Rakesh Kanwar and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: 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 on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 18.11.2024, rendered in CWP No.12792 of 2024, whereby this Court passed the following order: “5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners (Annexure P- 3 Colly.) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Taj Mohammad within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.” 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, petitioners have 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 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, respondents-contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three 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 official. September 22, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge