IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 1550 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.09.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Goverdhan Dass ……...Petitioner Versus Shivam Partap Singh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, 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 respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 09.12.2025, rendered in CWP No.18717 of 2025, titled as Goverdhan Dass Vs. HRTC and others, whereby this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.2471 of 2023 and SLP(C) No.6185 of 2020, titled as Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors. and Special Leave Petition (C) No.4722 of 2021, titled as Union of India & Anr. Vs. M. Siddaraj within six weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, 2 whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents 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 respondents, 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 three 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, respondents are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks from today, failing which, they 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 respondents are discharged. September 30, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge