1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.270 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.04.2025 __________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Raman Kumar Abhilashi ……...Petitioner Versus Rakhi Kahlon and another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Mehta, 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, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 27.12.2024, rendered in CWP No.16235 of 2024, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the petition with direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation within six weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, 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 Additional Advocate General, 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. April 09, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (shankar) Judge