IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1375 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Man Singh & Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: 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 their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 26.08.2025, rendered in CWP No.8719 of 2023, titled as Man Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioners, directed respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of judgment dated 24.03.2022, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.7794 of 2021, titled as Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. within four weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to 2 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 two 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, respondents are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, they 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 officials. December 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge