IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1196 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.11.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Naresh Kumar & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Sh. Ashish Kohli …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: 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 petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 29.08.2025, rendered in CWP No.13926 of 2025, titled as Rakesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioners, directed the respondent to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-2 colly) of the petitioners within six weeks in light of judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and in CWP No.12954 of 2025, titled as Deepika Kumari & 2 Ors. VS. State of H.P. & Ors. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful, petitioners have 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, respondent is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks from today, failing which, he 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 official. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. November 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge