Date Of Decision: 04.11.2024 vs Ashish Kohli
2024 Latest Caselaw 16428 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Date Of Decision: 04.11.2024 vs Ashish Kohli on 4 November, 2024

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

                                                                 2024:HHC:10565



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                                    COPC No.654 of 2024
                                            Date of Decision: 04.11.2024
__________________________________________________________________________
Kusum Lata                                                .........Petitioner
                                          Versus
Ashish Kohli                                              .......Respondent

Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner:       Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:       Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on

behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the

respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the

directions contained in order/judgment dated 28.03.2024, rendered in

CWP No.9552 of 2023, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of

the petition with direction to the respondent to consider and decide the

case of the petitioner strictly in terms of the judgment passed by the

Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.342 of 2021, titled as Yashwant

Singh & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 31.08.2022, by passing a

detailed and reasoned order, within eight weeks. Since despite there being

aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of

the respondent for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court

in the instant proceedings.

2024:HHC:10565

2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General

appearing on behalf of the respondent, 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, respondent-

contemnor is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to

have been violated within a period of three weeks, failing which he 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.

November 04, 2024                                        (Sandeep Sharma),
  (Rajeev Raturi)                                              Judge