IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 1320 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Desh Raj ……...Petitioner Versus Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 24.9.2025 passed in CWP No. 15493 of 2025, titled as Desh Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within three weeks. Since despite repeated 2 requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while waiving notices on behalf of the respondents, 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 one week 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, respondents- contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of one week, 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 11, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge