IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1388 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Suresh Gautam ……...Petitioner Versus Sh. Rakesh Kanwar & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Aafreen Kaushal, Advocate vice Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & 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 respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 14.10.2025, rendered in CWP No.16161 of 2025, titled as Suresh Gautam Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr., whereby this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within four weeks. 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. 2 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondent, states that though he has every reason to believe and 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 one week from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of one week from today, 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. December 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge