IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1514 of 2026 Date of Decision: 28.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Shivani Sharma and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 5.1.2026, passed by this Court in CWP No.181 of 2026, titled as Shivani Sharma and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide representation of the petitioners in light of judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and 2 Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., within six weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment sought to be executed, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of two weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned Deputy Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, failing which petitioners would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. September 28, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge