Himachal Pradesh High Court
_____________________________________________________________________ vs Rakesh Kanwar on 6 August, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
COPC No. 820 of 2025
Date of Decision: 6.8.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Inder Prasad
.........Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Kanwar
.......Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan
Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, 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 respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 7.4.2025 passed in CWP No. 4918 of 2025, titled as Inder Prasad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of CWP No. 3341 of 2019, titled as "Madan Lal Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr, decided on 4.9.2021, within six weeks. Since despite ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2025 21:31:03 :::CIS 2 repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, .
petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. B.C Verma, 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 three 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, respondent-
contemnor is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks, failing which he 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.
August 6, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2025 21:31:03 :::CIS