IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1475 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mast Ram …….Petitioner Versus Smt. Anju Sharma … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Happy Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ___________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for her having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 13.08.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 13023 of 2025, titled Mast Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondent to considered and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 23.06.2025 passed in CWP No. 8032 of 2021, titled Vikas Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, within a period of six weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondent failed to do the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of three weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly, same are closed with the direction to the respondent to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 13.08.2025, positively within a period of three weeks, if not already done, failing which, she would further aggravate the contempt. Petitioner is at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case aforesaid judgment is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken against the erring officials. Notice issued to the respondent is hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 30, 2025 (shankar)