IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.43 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.2.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Balam Ram ……...Petitioner Versus Shri Rajeev Kumar …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the mandate contained in order/judgment dated 23.10.2024, rendered by this Court in CWP No.11130 of 2024 titled Balam Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby a direction came to be issued to the respondent to decide the pending case within two months. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, needful was not done by the respondent, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2 2. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondent, on instructions, states that case of the petitioner, in terms of the judgment alleged to have been violated, has already been decided and as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly same are closed reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. February 27, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge