IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.224 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rakesh Chand …….Petitioner Versus Rohan Chand Thakur & Anr. … 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.10836 of 2024, titled Rakesh Chand vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. Since, despite there being 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 specific direction to do the needful, as taken note above, respondent failed to do the needful in terms of aforesaid judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of one week from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly, same are closed with the direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 21.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court positively within a period of one week, if not already done, failing which, they would further aggravate the contempt. Petitioner is at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case aforesaid judgment is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. Notice issued to the respondents is hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 27,2025 (shankar)