IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.44 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.03.2025 __________________________________________________________________________ Manju Bakshi ……...Petitioner Versus Rohan Chand Thakur and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Shivendra Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 01.10.2024, rendered in Execution Petition No.1015 of 2024, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order: “3. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents and the office communication dated 01.10.2024 as placed on record, the Execution Petition is disposed of with the hope and expectation that the respondent shall pay the admissible arrears to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.” 2. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2 3. Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that though he has every reason to presume that by now, judgment/order 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 six weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel representing the respondents, 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 six weeks, failing which they would aggravate the contempt and petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived, so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. March 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge