Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9306 (HP)

ASHOK KUMAR v. RAJA RAM SINGH

COPC/335/2025 · 2025-04-10

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:10104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.335 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ashok Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Dr. Raja Ram Singh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunny Modgil, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 20.12.2024, rendered in CWP No.15763 of 2025, whereby this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondent No. 2 to ensure that appeal filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided, within a period of four weeks. 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. 2 2. Mr. Bal Sharma, learned DSGI appearing on behalf of the respondent, 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 DSGI, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondent-contemnor is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated, within a period of four weeks, failing which he 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 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge