IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.960 of 2024 Date of Decision: 10.11.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Khem Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Sh. Abhishek Jain & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Ms. Dhanvanti & Ms. Anuja Mehta, proxy counsel. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) While placing on record communication dated 07.11.2025, issued under the signatures of Executive Engineer, B & R Division, HP PWD Joginder Nagar, enclosing therewith copy of office order dated 04.11.2025 passed by Engineer-in-Chief, HP PWD, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated stands complied with. 2. Having carefully perused consideration order vis-a-vis mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, this Court finds merit in the contention of learned Additional Advocate General. 2 3. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly, the same are closed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge to order passed in purported compliance of the judgment, alleged to have been violated. Notice issued to the respondents are discharged. November 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge