Veena Kumari vs Mr. Rugved Thakur And Anr on 5 August, 2020

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Veena Kumari vs Mr. Rugved Thakur And Anr on 5 August, 2020

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
                                                     COPC No.97 of 2020
                                                   Decided on 5.8.2020
     __________________________________________________________________




                                                                                    .
    Veena Kumari                                             Petitioner





                                   Versus
    Mr. Rugved Thakur and Anr.                             Respondents
     __________________________________________________________________





    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge
    Whether approved for reporting? 1

    For the petitioner                     :      Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate,





                                                  through Video Conferencing.
    For the respondents                    :
                                  Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General,
                                  with Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Additional
                                  Advocate General and Mr. Gaurav
                                r Sharma, Deputy Advocate General,

                                  through Video Conferencing.
    __________________________________________________________________
    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 10.1.2020, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 1949 of 2020, Veena Kumari v. State of HP and Anr, whereby the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the petition directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Jal Rakshak at LWSS Daryuogli (Gram Panchayat Chanouta), Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, within a 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2020 20:46:18 :::HCHP 2

period of three months. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid .

directions, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

2. Mr. Sanjeev Sood, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting the notice 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 definitely complied with within a period of two weeks from today.

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General representing 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 two 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. Notices issued to respondents are discharged at this stage.

    5th August, 2020                            (Sandeep Sharma),
     manjit                                             Judge




                                             ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2020 20:46:18 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court