IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1194 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.11.2025 ___________________________________________________________ Raj Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Dr. Nipun Jindal …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rahul Gathania, 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 respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 25.04.2025, rendered in CWP No.6311 of 2025, whereby this Court passed the following order: “4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment, as detailed hereinabove, wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.” 2 2. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondent for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent, submits that though he has every reason to presume that by now, judgment 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 three weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel representing the respondent, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondent- contemnor is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks, failing which respondent 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. November 19, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge