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