2025:HHC:1422 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.938 of 2024 Date of Decision: 07.01.2025 __________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Nirmal Singh and Others ……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional 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 05.07.2024, rendered in CWP No.568 of 2024, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the petition with direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners, within eight weeks, strictly in terms of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017, titled as Taj Mohammad and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others and CWP No.5290 of 2023, titled as Arun Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, decided on 03.11.2023, by passing a detailed and reasoned order. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, 2025:HHC:1422 2 whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. 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 four 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 four 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. January 07, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge