-1- 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.432 of 2025 Date of decision: 23.05.2025 Rajat Thakur. ...Petitioner. Versus Preet Pal. ...Respondent. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The petitioner instituted Civil Writ Petition No.7282 of 2024. In the aforesaid writ petition, CMP No.552 of 2025 was moved by the respondents-State, which was disposed of on 09.01.2025 by the Hon’ble Division Bench as under:- “CMP No.552 of 2025 On 20.11.2024, this Court passed the following orders:- “Heard. The petitioner through his authorized representative had addressed a communication to the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Revenue District, Nurpur, which reads as under:- “To The Deputy Commissioner Excise, RD, Nurpur. Subject: To provide calculation of arrear in respect of Unit No.3 &4 for the year 23-24. Sir, It is requested that he may please be provided calculation sheet/ details of the arrear of in respect of unit No.3 & 4. So as to enable us totally the -2- 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes same with our record. The department calculation viz-a-viz is as under:- Sr. No. Dues as per our record Dues as per Dept. Variation Unit No.3 ₹1,50,98,608/- ₹2,17,82,755/- ₹66,83,547/- Unit No.4 ₹4,65,51,939/- ₹6,75,53,561/- ₹2,10,01,622/- The department may please provide the same before the next date of hearing on Hon’ble High Court. Thanking you, Sd/- Shashi Kant Sharma Authorised representative to Rajat Thakur.” Before the petitioner is heard in the matter, let him deposit the admitted dues as per the record i.e. ₹1,50,98,608/- ₹1,50,98,608/- 1,50,98,608/- and 4,65,51,939/-. List thereafter.” 2. The State has filed this application for bringing on record certain documents, paras 1 and 2 thereof read as under:- “1. That the above cited writ petition was listed before this Hon’ble Court on 20.11.2024 when this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the non-applicant/ respondent to deposit the admitted dues as per the record i.e. 1,50,98,608/- and 4,65,51,939/-. The ₹1,50,98,608/- ₹1,50,98,608/- relevant portion of order dated 20.11.2024 read as under:- “Before the petitioner is heard in the matter, let him deposit the admitted dues as per the record i.e. 1,50,98,608/- 1,50,98,608/- and ₹1,50,98,608/- 4,65,51,939/-, 1,50,98,608/- List thereafter.” 2. That it is submitted that applicant/ respondent No.3 vide letter dated 23.11.2024 (annexure R-1 (colly.) intimated that the non-applicant/ petitioner has failed to comply with the directions of this Hon’ble Court and has not deposited the aforesaid amount even after an elapse of more than one month.” 3. In addition thereto, the respondents have placed on record instructions dated 09.01.2025 which go to indicate that the petitioner has not deposited the admitted amount despite having adequate source. It shall be apt to reproduce the contents of the letter dated 09.01.2025 text whereof reads as under:- “Sir, On the subject cited above, it is submitted that in compliance to the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh order passed in CWP No.7282 of 2024 in the matter of Rajat Thakur V/s State of H.P. and others, it is submitted -3- 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes that M/s Rajat Thakur did not deposit amount of Rs.6.15 Crore till 06.01.2025. 1. On 07th January at about 5 PM a bank employee of ICICI bank Jassur has submitted tow bank draft amounting to Rs10 Laac and 05 Lac total amounting to Rs.15 Lac. 2. Sh. Rajat Thakur has received payment of Rs. More than 04 Crore from M/s BBMP Talwara before two months. 3. Sh. Rajat Thakur has running 04 Petrol Pumps ( on his own name or on the name of his wife) in Kangra District. 4. Sh. Rajat Thakur owing more than 150 trucks, tippers etc. 5. Sh. Rajat Thkaur is the owner of big running Hotel namely ELIOT Exotica at Dharamshala. 6. Sh. Rajat Thakur has 04 bitumin mixer plants in Kangra district. 7. He has been doing road works at Fetahpur Talwara road, Dehra Division, Jawala Ji Division and in Kotla Behad division in joint venture with other contractors total works in progress is about 08 crore in different divisions in Kangra District. This for your kind information and further necessary action, please.” 4. In this view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to allow the application by taking on record additional documents filed by the respondents and at the same time direct the petitioner/ non-applicant to comply with the order dated 20.11.2024 by 07.02.2025, failing which, it shall be open for the respondents to take coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of the amount. Application stands disposed of.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that aforesaid order was primarily based upon contents of letter/instructions dated 09.01.2025 placed on record by the respondents. That the information supplied by the respondents in the aforesaid letter was incorrect and misleading, hence, contempt is made out against the respondents for abusing the process of the Court. -4- 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 3. To a query of the Court as to whether the petitioner has brought the facts now alleged in the contempt petition before the notice of the Hon’ble Division Bench, which is seized of the main matter, the answer was in the affirmative. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner had moved CMP No.3058 of 2025 for recalling the order dated 09.01.2025 passed in CMP No.552 of 2025 in CWP No.7282 of 2024 on the grounds that information supplied in the letter/instructions dated 09.01.2025 was factually wrong and misleading, but the Hon’ble Court dismissed the application on 20.03.2023. Copy of the order dated 20.03.2025 has been placed on record. In fact, learned counsel also apprised that the main writ petition filed by the petitioner (CWP No.7282 of 2024) has also been dismissed on 24.04.2025 for want of compliance on the part of petitioner. 4. Once the Hon’ble Division Bench, which passed the order dated 09.01.2025, has not recalled its order and the application of the petitioner for recalling the afore order, moved on the same ground as has been urged in this contempt petition, stands dismissed, there arises no occasion to issue notice to the respondents of this contempt petition. Neither any contempt nor the case of abuse of -5- 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes process of the Court is made out. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 23rd May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)