IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.189 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Surjit Singh …….Petitioner Versus Onkar Sharma & others … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with 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 respondents for their having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 26.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 744 of 2024 titled Surjit Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 11.04.2023 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 titled Director (Admn. & HR)KPTCL and others vs. C.P. Mundinamani and others and order dated 06.09.2024 passed in SLP(C) No.4722 of 2021, titled Union of India and another vs. M. Siddaraj, within a period of six weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note above, respondents failed to do the needful in terms of aforesaid judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. B.C.Verma, 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 two 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 26.11.2024 rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court positively within a period of two weeks, 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 3 judgment is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 22,2025 (shankar)