IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1391 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Parmanand & Ors. ……...Petitioner Versus Sh. Ashish Kohli …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates 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 respondents for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 28.07.2025, rendered in CWP No.12153 of 2025, titled as Parmanand an Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr., whereby this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light 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 2 the behest of the respondent 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 respondent, 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. December 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge