IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 1285 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Rakash Pal ……...Petitioner Versus Ashish Kumar Kohli …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Advocate. For the Respondents: 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 02.01.2026, rendered in CWP No.21056 of 2025, titled as Rakash Pal Vs. State of H.P. and another, whereby Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed in CWP No. 4830 of 2023, titled as Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., within six weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondent 2 for doing 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 officials. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. September 10, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge