Himachal Pradesh High Court
_____________________________________________________________________ vs Sh. Amandeep Garg And Ors on 25 February, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No.30 of 2025
Date of Decision: 25.2.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Shri Ram Dass
.........Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Amandeep Garg and Ors.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Pradeep Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan
Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates
General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 27.5.2024, rendered by this Court in CWP No.5922 of 2022 (Ram Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.), whereby this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings within four weeks under the relevant statute vis-à-vis land of the petitioner and award just and fair 2 compensation within two months thereafter. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that though he has every reason to 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 six weeks from today.
3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents- contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of six weeks, 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.
February 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge