IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.163 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Chet Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Munish Datwalia and Mr. Ram Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 31.12.2024, rendered in CWP No. 338 of 2024 (Chet Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.), whereby coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 7.7.2023, passed in CWP No. 2 2500/2021, titled Ranjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., within six weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, 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 four weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel or the respondents, 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 four weeks, failing which they would aggravate the contempt and petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. March 20, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge