Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_____________________________________________________________________ vs Rohan Chand Thakur And Anr on 20 March, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                                    COPC No.161 of 2025
                                             Date of Decision: 20.3.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Vijay Kumar
                                                               .........Petitioner
                                             Versus
Rohan Chand Thakur and Anr.
                                                             .......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner:        Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.
___________________________________________________________________________
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 24.10.2024, rendered in CWP No. 10087 of 2024 (Vijay Kumar v. HRTC and Anr.), whereby coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within six weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings.

2

2. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, 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 eight weeks from today.

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel or the respondents, 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 eight 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.

March 20, 2025                                         (Sandeep Sharma),
     (manjit)                                               Judge