Decided On 27.4.202 vs Mr. Rajeev Sharma And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 2756 HP

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.




                                                                                          .
                                                     COPC No.162 of 2021





                                                   Decided on 27.4.2021
      __________________________________________________________________
    Prakash Chand                                             Petitioner
                                    Versus





    Mr. Rajeev Sharma and Anr.                              Respondents
      __________________________________________________________________
    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge





    Whether approved for reporting? 1

    For the petitioner                     :      Mr. Varun Chandel, Advocate.
    For the respondents                    :      Mr.  Sudhir Bhatnagar,                   Additional
                                                  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 judgment dated

18.3.2021, passed in CWP No. 1716 of 2021, whereby the Division Bench

of this Court while dismissing the petition, directed the respondents

concerned to decide representation within a period of four weeks

after affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. Since no

action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

respondents, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant

.

proceedings.

2. 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 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, respondents-contemnors are directed to do the needful in

terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of

three 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. Notices issued to

respondents are discharged at this stage.

    27th April, 2021                             (Sandeep Sharma),
     manjit                                           Judge