2025:HHC:3991 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.56 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.02.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Jhaboo Devi ……...Petitioner Versus Akshey Sood …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Mr. Balvinder Singh and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates 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 respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in the order/judgment dated 11.11.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No. 6826 of 2024, titled as Jhaboo Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., whereby direction came to be issued to the respondent to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for grant of benefits admissible to her in light of judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 titled Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. alongwith connected matters. Since, despite there 2 being aforesaid direction, needful never came to be done at the behest of respondent, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondent, specifically invited attention of this Court to order dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure C-2) placed on record by the petitioner. He states that in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated, case of the petitioner was duly considered in light of Satya Devi (supra), but since same was not found applicable to the case of the petitioner, her representation was rejected. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that there was already a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in light of Satya Devi (supra) and since pursuant to afore direction, respondent has already passed consideration order, no action of the respondents can be said to be contumacious. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused directions contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated vis- a-vis order dated 02.12.2024 passedby the respondent in purported compliance of judgment, alleged to have been violated, there appears to be merit in the contention of Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Since there was only a direction to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Satya Devi (supra) and 3 respondent vide order dated 02.12.2024 has already considered the case of the petitioner, no action of the respondents can be said to be contumacious. 5. Though at this stage, Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, attempted to argue that bare perusal of consideration order nowhere suggests that respondent considered the case of the petitioner in light of Satya Devi (supra). He further submitted that otherwise also, no specific reason has been assigned in consideration order qua non application of Satya Devi (supra) in the case of the petitioner. Needless to say, correctness of consideration order passed in purported compliance cannot be gone into in contempt proceedings, rather same are meant to ensure compliance of the mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated. Correctness of order passed in purported compliance can only be laid challenge by way of substantive writ. 6. Consequently, in view of above, the present petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, laying therein challenge to order dated 02.12.2024. February 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge