1 ( 2026:HHC:18385 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 856 of 2024 Decided on: 19.05.2026 ________________________________________________ Gian Singh & Anr. ....Petitioners Versus Abhishek Jain & Anr. …Respondents _ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. H.K.S. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge (oral) The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners for non-compliance of order dated 26.09.2024, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 10954 of 2024. The relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “……….. 4. Other than the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that with respect to the grievances being raised in the present petition, representations i.e. Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:18385 ) dated 06.12.2023 stand filed with the concerned quarter. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the representations so made shall be decided within a period of four weeks from today. ……….” 2. In compliance affidavit dated 10.04.2025, filed by Engineer Narinder Pal Singh, it has been stated that representations of the petitioners were decided in accordance with the directions passed by this Court vide judgment dated 30.11.2024 by passing a detailed speaking order Annexure R-1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have failed to comply with the judgment dated 26.09.2024, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court, within the time stipulated, therefore, the respondents have committed contempt of this Court. He further submitted that respondent No. 1, Mr. Abhishek Jain, who at that time was working as Secretary (PWD) to the Government of H.P., did not file his reply, though he ought to have filed reply to the contempt petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate General submitted that representations of the petitioners were to be decided by respondent No. 2, Engineer-in-Chief, who was 3 ( 2026:HHC:18385 ) competent authority to decide the representations and respondent No. 1, Mr. Abhishek Jain, has nothing to do with the matter. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Advocate General for the respondents/State and have also gone through the records carefully. 6. The perusal of order dated 26.09.2024 reveals that the same was to be complied within a period of four weeks. However, the perusal of relevant record produced before this Court today reveals that aforesaid order was communicated from the Office of learned Advocate General only on 04.11.2024 and thereafter the representations of the petitioners were decided on 30.11.2024. 7. In reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 20.04.2026, Mr. R.D. Nazeem, the then Additional Chief Secretary (PW) to the Government of H.P. has tendered unconditional and unqualified apology for deciding the matter outside stipulated period. 4 ( 2026:HHC:18385 ) 8. Today, Mr. Abhishek Jain, has filed his reply in the open Court and he has also tendered unconditional and unqualified apology to this Court with further submissions that he remained Secretary (PWD) w.e.f. 20.08.2024 till 03.11.2025 and had relinquished the charge as such on the said date. Subsequent to relinquishment of charge by him, Sh. Devesh Kumar has been assigned the charge of Secretary (PWD) and presently he is holding the charge of the post. It has further been submitted that representations of the petitioners were decided in compliance to the directions passed by this Court by the competent authority by passing a detailed speaking order dated 30.11.2024. 9. Since the respondents have tendered unconditional and unqualified apology and had also decided the representations of the petitioners, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there is no willful or deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondents. The apology tendered by the respondents is accepted. Hence, nothing survives in the present contempt petition. Contempt notice is discharged. 5 ( 2026:HHC:18385 ) 10. However, if the petitioners are still aggrieved, they are at liberty to assail order dated 30.11.2024 in accordance with law. 11. The petition is disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) 19th May, 2026 Judge (raman)