IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.136 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Shesh Ram Thakur …….Petitioner Versus Rohan Chand Thakur … Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Raman Jamalta, 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 respondent for his having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 09.12.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 12919 of 2024 titled Shesh Ram Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 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 four 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. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel representing the respondent, 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 two weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned counsel for the respondent, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly, same are closed with the direction to the respondent to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 09.12.2024 rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court positively within a period of two weeks, if not already done, failing which, he 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 respondent is hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 22,2025 (shankar)