IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1470 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vidya Prakash …….Petitioner Versus Sh. Bhupinder Attri … Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________ 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 his having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 23.04.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 7684 of 2025 titled Vidya Prakash vs. the Municipal Corporation, Shimla alongwith connected matters. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4299 of 2019 titled as Pushpa Devi Vs. Himachal Pradesh University., in CWP No. 5090 of 2022 titled as Umesh Jaswal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Ors., and in CWPOA No. 1077 of 2019 titled as Nitin Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., within a period of four weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondent failed to do the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Mukul Sood, learned counsel 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 counsel for the respondent, 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 23.04.2025, positively within a period of three weeks, if not already done, failing which, he 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)