2025:HHC:1716 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.947 of 2024 Date of Decision: 08.01.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mukesh Kumar & others …….Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar & another … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 29.04.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3442 of 2024, titled Mukesh Kumar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:1716 having taken note of the statement made by learned counsel representing the petitioners that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment dated 14.03.2024 passed by this Court in CWPOA No.2782 of 2019, titled Narender Singh Thakur versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, disposed of the petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in terms of aforesaid judgment, within a period of four weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note above, respondents failed to do the needful in terms of aforesaid judgment, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of four weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly, same are closed with the direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 29.04.2024 rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court positively within a period of four weeks, if not already done, 3 2025:HHC:1716 failing which, they would further aggravate the contempt. Petitioners are at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case aforesaid judgment is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 08,2025 (shankar)