Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar vs Rakesh Kanwar & Anr on 3 May, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No. 81 of 2024
Date of Decision: 03.05.2024
_____________________________________________________________________
.
Anil Kumar .........Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Kanwar & Anr. .......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kishore Pundeer, Advocate, for
petitioner.
For the respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma, & Mr.
Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General,
with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
r General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant Contempt Petition filed under Article 215
of Constitution of India read with Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for
initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful
disobedience of directions contained in the judgment dated 10.10.2023
passed by this Court in LPA No.136 of 2023, titled as State of HP &
Anr. Vs. Anil Kumar.
2. Careful perusal of aforesaid orders alleged to have been
violated, reveals that this Court having taken note of the undertaking
made by the respondents to release the due and admissible benefits to
the petitioner within a period of four months and benefits given beyond
three years prior to filing of writ petition shall be extended to him on
notional basis, disposed of the aforesaid appeal with a direction to do
the needful. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the
.
needful, as taken note herein above, respondents failed to do the
needful in afore terms, petitioner has approached this Court in the
instant proceedings.
3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,
while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though
he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid
orders alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but
if not, same would be complied with within a period of four weeks from
today.
4. Consequently, in view of the afore undertaking given by
respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition
alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with a direction to
the respondents to do the needful, positively within a period of four
weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioner would be at liberty to
get the present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in
accordance with law, is taken against erring officials. Notices issued to
the respondents are discharged.
May 03, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma),
Sunil Judge
