2025:HHC:10986 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.341 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Pushap Raj & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Dr. Amarjeet Kumar Sharma …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Kiran Kumar Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 07.01.2025, rendered in CWP No.15038 of 2024, whereby Coordinate Bench this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondent/competent authority to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondent 2 for doing the needful, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of 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 two weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, 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 two weeks from today, failing which he would aggravate the contempt and petitioners would be at liberty to get the present petition revived, so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. April 24, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge