IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1223 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.11.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Gupt Ram & Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus Sh. Ashish Kumar Kohli …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi & Ms. Bhavinta, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and 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 respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 08.04.2025, rendered in CWP No.3195 of 2025, titled as Gupt Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr, whereby this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioners, directed the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioners within four weeks in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 8148 of 2022 titled as Yashwant Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. along with connected matters. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no 2 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 26, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge