Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 22.11.2024 vs Rakesh Kanwar And Others on 22 November, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:12270 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.544 of 2024 Date of Decision: 22.11.2024 _______________________________________________________ Manoj Kumar & another .......Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar and others ... Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Shagun Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: 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):
Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, Director Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, clearly reveals that pursuant to the mandate contained in the judgment/order alleged to have been violated, respondents herein after having considered the case of the petitioners in light of judgment dated 24.04.2021 passed in CWPOA No. 1911 of 2019, titled Jagroop Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which was further assailed in LPA No.157 of 2022, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Jagroop Singh, rejected the case of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are not similarly situate to Jagroop Singh or Surajmani. It 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2
2024:HHC:12270 has been further stated that judgment passed in Jagroop Singh case (supra) has yet not attained finality. Since only direction was to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in terms of aforesaid judgments passed by learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA and LPA, as detailed hereinabove, and respondents after having perused the afore judgments, have passed order dated 5th September, 2024 (Annexure R-1), no action of the respondents can be said to be contumacious.
2. Though, while referring to aforesaid order passed in purported compliance vis-à-vis judgment passed by learned Single Judge in Jagroop Singh's case(supra), learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that order passed in purported compliance is not in conformity with law laid down in Jagroop Singh case(supra), however this Court is not persuaded to agree with aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that correctness of consideration order passed in purported compliance of order cannot be gone into in these proceedings, rather for that purpose, person aggrieved of such order is expected to file substantive writ petition in the competent court of law. Needless to say, execution petition and contempt petition are only meant to ensure compliance of the mandate contained in the judgment/order alleged to have been violated and for awarding adequate punishment 3 2024:HHC:12270 to person responsible for willful and deliberate disobedience of the order/judgment passed by competent court of law.
3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly same are closed. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge to the consideration order passed by the respondents in purported compliance of the judgment/order alleged to have been violated.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge November 22, 2024 (shankar)