Date Of Decision: 14.11.2024 vs Rohan Chand Thakur
2024 Latest Caselaw 17386 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Date Of Decision: 14.11.2024 vs Rohan Chand Thakur on 14 November, 2024

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

                                                              2024:HHC:11423




IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                               COPC No.674 of 2024
                                       Date of Decision: 14.11.2024
_____________________________________________________________________
Hoshiar Singh                                           .........Petitioner
                                       Versus
Rohan Chand Thakur                                      .......Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner:  Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur and Ms. Anchal
                     Sharma, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant 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 of directions contained in the order/judgment dated

11.01.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No.469 of

2024, titled as Sandeep Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of HP & Ors.

2. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment alleged to have been

violated, reveals that this Court having taken note of the undertaking

given on behalf of the respondent to examine/ consider the case of the

petitioner in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court

in CWP No. 2343 of 2020, within six weeks, disposed of the aforesaid

petition with a direction to do the needful. Since, despite there being

specific direction to do the needful, as taken note herein above,

respondent failed to decide the case of the petitioner, he has

approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

2. Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel 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 two weeks from today.

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the

learned counsel for the respondent, this Court sees no reason to keep

the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of

with the direction to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to

have been violated positively within a period of two 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.

November 14, 2024                              (Sandeep Sharma),
      (Sunil)                                        Judge