IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.287 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vijay Nag …….Petitioner Versus Ajay Sharma … Respondent ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent-contemnor for his having violated the mandate contained in the judgment dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3173 of 2025, titled Vijay Nag vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, whereby this Court, while directing the competent authority to decide the representation, if any, filed by the petitioner for his adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of couple case, further ordered that petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station, if not already relieved. 2. Since allegedly despite there being aforesaid order, respondent vide communication dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-2), called upon petitioner to join at the transferred station and intimate the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 compliance report, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having violated the direction contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated. 3. Pursuant to order dated 28.03.2025, respondent- contemnor has come present in person. He states that since petitioner already stood relieved prior to passing of judgment dated 10.03.2025 and another incumbent had already joined at the place of petitioner, he, while intimating the petitioner with regard to his relieving, also advised him to join at the transferred station. He further states that representation filed by the petitioner has been decided by the competent authority and pursuant to his request, he has been posted at Ranital, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. 4. Having perused communication dated 12.03.2025 vis-à- vis mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated, this Court finds merit in the contention of the respondent-contemnor because this Court, while directing the respondent not to compel the petitioner to join, had specifically mentioned, “if not already relieved”, but since petitioner prior to passing of aforesaid order stood relieved, no action of the respondent inasmuch as calling upon him to join at the transferred station can be said to be contemptuous. Moreover, this Court finds that request made by the petitioner for his adjustment has been favourably accepted by the competent authority. 3 5. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly same are closed, Notice issued to the respondent is hereby discharged. Though, there is no material adduced on record suggestive of the fact that respondent- contemnor had any kind of bias against the petitioner, but yet taking note of litigation initiated at the behest of the petitioner, wherein respondent personally came to be named as a respondent, this Court, while parting wishes to observe that respondent-contemnor would not adopt vindictive attitude, while writing ACR of the petitioner, which are otherwise stated to be pending for considerable time. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 16,2025 (shankar)