IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.222 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Cheu …….Petitioner Versus Sh. K.K. Panth … Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________ 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 08.01.2018 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2939 of 2017 titled Cheu vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner within a period of two weeks. Since, despite there being 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General 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 four weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, 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 08.01.2018 rendered by Division Bench of this Court positively within a period of four 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 respondents is hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 27,2025 (shankar)