2025:HHC:2727 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 13 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.01.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sardari Lal & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (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 willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 30.08.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No.3595 of 2024, titled as Sardari Lal & Ors. Vs. State of HP & Anr. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that this Court having taken note of the statement made by learned counsel representing the petitioners that interest of justice would be served, in case the respondents are 2 directed to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of judgment dated 03.08.2023 rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017 alongwith connected matters, titled Taj Mohammad & Ors. Vs. State of HP & Ors., disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners, in the light of aforesaid judgment within a period of six weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note above, respondents failed to consider the case of the petitioners in light of Taj Mohammad's case (supra), petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. 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 aforesaid judgment/ order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of four weeks from today. 4. 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 as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated, positively within a period of four weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioners would be at liberty to get the 3 present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken against erring officials. January 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Sunil Judge