2025:HHC:3255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.26 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.02.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dr. Khyal Chand & others …….Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar & another … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with 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 09.07.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1386 of 2024, titled Dr. Khyal Chand and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another . 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:3255 and decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks strictly in terms of the judgments 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. 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 09.07.2024 rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court positively within a period of four weeks, if not already done, 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 3 2025:HHC:3255 accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge February 24, 2025 (shankar)