IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1317 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vikramjeet Singh …….Petitioner Versus Ms. Satwant Atwal … Respondent ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankit Dhiman, proxy counsel vice Mr. Panku Choudhary, 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 11.09.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 14669 of 2025, titled Vikramjeet Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 11004 of 2025, titled Reshmo Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, , within a period of six 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 11.09.2025, 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 3 complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken against the erring officials. Notice issued to the respondents is hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 10,2025 (shankar)