IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1282 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Anurag Sharma …….Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar & Anr. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Aafreen Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________ 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 their having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 27.08.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 13813 of 2025, titled Anurag Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondent/competent authority to decide the pending representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 respondent 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 ten days 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 respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 27.08.2025, positively within a period of ten days, 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, is taken against the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 04, 2025 (shankar)