IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1546 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Poonam Kumari & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Ashish Kohli …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 05.01.2026, rendered in CWP No.21135 of 2026, titled as Poonam Kumari and others Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., whereby this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioners, directed the respondent to consider and decide the pending representations of the petitioners within six weeks in light of judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the 2 respondent for doing the needful, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, 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 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, respondent is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks from today, failing which, he would aggravate the contempt and 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. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged. September 30, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil) Judge