IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1048 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Mrs. Rakhi Rani ……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Aanchal, Advocate vice Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant 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 the order/judgment dated 18.11.2024, rendered in CWP No.13104 of 2024, titled as Dutta Singh & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Anr., whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents 2 for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and 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. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks from today, 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 officials. Notice issued to the respondents are discharged. September 26, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge