Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6687 (HP)

GANGBIR SINGH v. ROHAN CHAND THAKUR AND ORS

COPC/223/2025 · 2025-03-27

Sandeep Sharma

Contempt Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.223 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Gangbir Singh …….Petitioner Versus Rohan Chand Thakur & another … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________ 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 respondents for their having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 21.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 10683 of 2024 titled Gangbir Singh vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another alongwith connected matters, whereby direction came to be issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 22.02.2022 passed by Full Bench of this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Before cognizance on the averments contained in the petition could be taken, Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondents, on instructions, states that representation having been filed by the petitioner herein was duly considered and he has been granted dearness allowance. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, no action of the respondents can be said to be contemptuous and as such, present petition is disposed of, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to get the present proceedings revived in case needful is not done, enabling this Court to pass appropriate orders against the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 27,2025 (shankar)