IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1387 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ishwar Dass ……...Petitioner Versus Mr. Rakesh Kanwar & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Anchal & Ms. Nargis Thakur, Advocates. For the respondent: 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 30.07.2025, rendered in CWP No.12395 of 2025, titled as Ishwar Dass Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & 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 in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.8148 of 2022 titled as Yashwant Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. along with connected matters. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, 2 came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, 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 three weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by 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 three weeks 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