_____________________________________________________________________ vs Mr. Rakesh Kanwar And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 4253 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

_____________________________________________________________________ vs Mr. Rakesh Kanwar And Ors on 27 February, 2025

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                                     COPC No. 53 of 2025
                                             Date of Decision: 27.2.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Ruchi Sahni
                                                               .........Petitioner
                                          Versus
Mr. Rakesh Kanwar and Ors.
                                                             .......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner:       Mr. V.B. Verma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.
                     Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi
                     Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on

behalf of petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the

respondents for their having not complied with mandate contained in the

judgment dated 29.7.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of his Court in

CWP No. 7362 of 2024 titled as Ruchi Sahni Vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh & Anr., whereby direction came to be issued to the respondents

to decide the representation filed by the petitioner within a period of four

weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to

be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the

instant proceedings.

2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,

appearing on behalf of the respondents, 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, respondents-

contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to

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

February 27, 2025                                             (Sandeep Sharma),
     (manjit)                                                     Judge