Disposed

Akhil Kumar v. Virender Sharma

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Aug 2022COPC/272/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the petitioner sought action against the respondent for allegedly disobeying a prior direction to consider a representation. The court accepted the respondent's assurance of compliance and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to do the needful within two weeks, failing which the petition may be revived for appropriate action against the contemnor.

Akhil Kumar Vs Virender Sharma — Contempt of Court | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022 BEFORE

¶2

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA CIVIL ORIGINAL PETITION CONTEMPT NO. 272 OF 2022

¶3

Between:-

¶4

SH. AKHIL KUMAR S/O SH. KARNAIL SINGH RANA, R/O VILL. MOUKHAR, P.O HOURI DEVI TEHSIL FATEHPUR, DISTT. KANGRA, H.P. PRESENTLY WORKING AS TGT(NM) AT GOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL KATHEL, TEHSIL CHURAH, DISTRICT CHAMBA

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

(BY MR. RAKESH KUMAR DOGRA, ADVOCATE)

¶7

AND SH. VIRENDER SHARMA DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, SHIMLA, H.P.

¶8

RESPONDENT

¶9

(BY MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR. NARINDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL WITH MR. SUNNY DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL)

¶10

Whether approved for reporting:

¶11

This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

By way of instant contempt petition filed under Ss. 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act re, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent, for intentionally and willfully disobeying the direction contained in judgment dated 18.5.2022 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3077 of 2022 titled Akhil Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, whereby petition was disposed of with a direction to the

¶14

¶15

respondent to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-1), within three weeks in light of judgment dated 27.8.2007 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1105 of 2006. Since the respondents failed to do the needful in terms of the judgment in question, petitioner has been compelled to approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent.

¶16

Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondent, states that though he has reasons to believe that the order in question stands complied with, but if not, same would be complied with, within a period of two weeks.

¶17

Consequently, in view of the fair stand taken by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and same are disposed of with a direction to the respondent to do the needful in terms of order (supra), within two weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived, so that appropriate action is taken against the contemnor.

¶18

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶19

August 4, 2022 (Vikrant)

Akhil Kumar v. Virender Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhil Kumar v. Virender Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Vs Jeevan Kumar and Anr.

Anita Kumari Vs State of Hp

Vikrant Chauhan Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Kushagra Chibber Vs State of Hp and Another

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Ram Rattan Sharma Vs State of Hp and Anr.