IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1316 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Harbans Lal …….Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar … Respondent ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankit Dhiman, proxy counsel vice Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondents- State. _______________________________________________________ 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 22.08.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 13422 of 2025, titled Harbans Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3341 of 2019, titled Madan Lal Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another decided on 4th September, 2021, within a period of eight 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents 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 two 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 22.08.2025, positively within a period of two 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, 3 is taken against the erring officials. Notice issued to the respondents is hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 10,2025 (shankar)