IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.394 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.05.2025 __________________________________________________________________________ Sunny Kumar and Others ……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Hemant Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present 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 order/judgment dated 02.09.2024, rendered in CWP No.3521 of 2024, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order: “2. In view of this, this writ petition is disposed of with the observation that let a detailed representation be filed by the petitioners with regard to the issue raised in this writ petition, by referring therein the abovementioned judgments. In the event of any such representation being filed by the petitioners within a period of three weeks from today, decision thereupon in view of the averments made therein, in accordance with law and in light of judgments being relied upon by the petitioners, be taken, within a period of three months thereafter, by passing a speaking order.” 2 2. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no 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. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that though he has every reason to 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. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents- contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks, 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. May 06, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge