IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1343 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Amit Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus M. Sudha Devi & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 18.09.2025, rendered in CWP No.15482 of 2024, titled as Amit Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law as well as taking note of judgment dated 07.04.2025 passed in CWP No. 4830 of 2023, titled as Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. within a period of six weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents 2 for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and 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 three weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks from today, failing which, they 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. Notice issued to the respondents are discharged. December 12, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge