IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 1272 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.09.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Sanjay Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Jitender Thakur …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant 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 the order/judgment dated 24.02.2026, rendered in CWP No.1358 of 2026, titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Others, whereby Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the petitioner to file a separate representation with regard to the issue raised in the instant petition to the competent authority, within four weeks. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court further directed the competent authority to decide the aforesaid representation within 12 weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondent for doing 2 the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondent, states that though he has every reason to believe and 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. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondent is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks from today, 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 official. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. September 09, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge