Surinder Singh Vs Rohan Chand Thakur and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Surinder Singh Vs Rohan Chand Thakur and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition closed without initiation of contempt proceedings; respondents-contemnors directed to comply in terms of the violated judgment within two weeks, failing which the petitioner may seek revival of the petition for appropriate action against the erring officials.

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents for their willful and intentional disobedience of the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 27.05.2024 rendered in CWP No.4672 of 2024. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel representing the respondents, the Court saw no reason to keep the present contempt petition alive and accordingly closed it.

Ratio / Principle

Respondents-contemnors were directed to do the needful in terms of the judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks, failing which they would aggravate the contempt and the 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.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition (COPC No.783 of 2024) by Surinder Singh against Rohan Chand & Anr., alleging willful and intentional disobedience of the directions in the order/judgment dated 27.05.2024 rendered in CWP No.4672 of 2024, whereby the Coordinate Bench had directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' cases in light of the judgments referred therein and pass appropriate orders within three weeks. Counsel for the respondents submitted that compliance had presumably been effected and, if not, would be positively complied with within two weeks. Holding that no reason existed to keep the petition alive in view of this fair stand, Justice Sandeep Sharma closed the petition, while directing the contemnors to do the needful within two weeks, failing which the contempt would stand aggravated and the petitioner would be free to seek revival of the petition for action against the erring officials. (Oral judgment, decided 05.12.2024.)

2024:HHC:13449

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

COPC No.783 of 2024 Date of Decision: 05.12.2024

_____________________________ Surinder Singh	__________________ Versus	______________________ ……...Petitioner
Rohan Chand & Anr.		…....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 27.05.2024, rendered in CWP No.4672 of 2024, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the bunch of petitions, directed respondents to consider the respective cases of the petitioners in light of the various judgments, as referred in the order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for

2

2024:HHC:13449

doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of 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 two weeks from today.

Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel representing the respondents, 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 two 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.

December 05, 2024

(Rajeev Raturi)

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge