Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 19.11.2024 vs Apurav Devgan on 19 November, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:11712 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.708 of 2024 Date of Decision: 19.11.2024 _______________________________________________________ Hem Lata .......Petitioner Versus Apurav Devgan . ... Respondent ______________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(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 intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 17.06.2024 passed by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.4788 of 2024, titled Hem Lata vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed respondent No.3/competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from today. Since, despite there being 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2
2024:HHC:11712 specific direction to do the needful, as taken note above, respondent failed to do the needful in terms of aforesaid judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of two weeks from today.
4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly, same are closed with the direction to the respondent to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 17.06.2024, positively within a period of two weeks, if not already done, failing which, he would further aggravate the contempt. Petitioner is at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case aforesaid judgment is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken against the erring official. Notice issued to the respondent is hereby discharged accordingly.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 19,2024 (shankar)