IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.395 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.05.2025 __________________________________________________________________________ Kasturi Lal ……...Petitioner Versus Nipun Jindal and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: M/s Ashok Kumar and Rakesh Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. _________________________________________________________________________________ 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.14749 of 2024, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order: “2. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, without making any observation on the merits of the cases, these petitions are disposed of with the direction that let the representations filed by the petitioners be decided by the Competent Authority, in the light of the averments made therein, within a period of eight weeks’ from today, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.” 2 2. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondent for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 3. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, 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 two weeks from today. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel representing 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 two weeks, failing which respondents 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. May 06, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge