Amin Chand vs Rakesh Kanwar
2025 Latest Caselaw 7640 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Amin Chand vs Rakesh Kanwar on 25 August, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                                  COPC No. 894 of 2025
                                           Date of Decision: 25.08.2025
    _____________________________________________________________________




                                                               .
    Amin Chand                                                  .........Petitioner





                                     Versus
    Rakesh Kanwar                                               .......Respondent
    Coram





    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?
    For the Petitioner:       Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate.
    For the respondent:      Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan





                             Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional
                             Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan,
                             Deputy Advocate General.
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    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 the directions contained in the order/judgment dated

30.04.2025, rendered in CWP No.6982 of 2025, titled as Amin Chand

Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court,

while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the

respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner

inter alia keeping in view the stand of the respondents as reflected in

decision rendered in CWP No. 15312 of 2012, titled as Kamaljeet

Kaur Sidhu Vs. State of H.P. & Ors, within a period of six 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.

2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General,

.

while accepting notice on behalf of the respondent, states that though

he has every reason to believe and 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 learned

Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the

present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However,

respondent is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged

to have been violated within a period of two weeks from today, 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. Notice issued

to the respondent is discharged.

    August 25, 2025                                       (Sandeep Sharma),
         (Sunil)                                                Judge