Hari Ram Vs Rohan Chand Thakur and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Hari Ram Vs Rohan Chand Thakur and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition closed without initiating contempt proceedings; respondents-contemnors directed to do the needful in terms of the judgment alleged to have been violated (order/judgment dated 24.05.2024 in CWP No.4470 of 2024) within two weeks, failing which the contempt would stand aggravated and the petitioner would be at liberty to 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 24.05.2024 rendered in CWP No.4470 of 2024.

Ratio / Principle

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.

Key takeaways

The 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.ratio¶15
On default in compliance, 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.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition — COPC No.787 of 2024 — Hari Ram v. Rohan Chand & Anr. — Himachal Pradesh High Court (Shimla), Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) — Petition alleging willful and intentional disobedience of directions in order/judgment dated 24.05.2024 rendered in CWP No.4470 of 2024, whereby a Coordinate Bench, while disposing of a bunch of petitions, directed respondents to consider the respective cases of the petitioners in light of the judgments referred in the order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three weeks. Counsel for respondents submitted that compliance had presumably by then been effected in its totality, failing which it would be positively complied with within two weeks. Held: in view of the fair stand adopted by respondents' counsel, no reason to keep the petition alive; petition closed, with respondents-contemnors directed to do the needful within two weeks — default would aggravate the contempt, and the petitioner would be at liberty to get the petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials.

2024:HHC:12889

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

COPC No.787 of 2024 Date of Decision: 02.12.2024

_____________________________ Hari Ram	__________________	______________________ ……...Petitioner
	Versus
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 24.05.2024, rendered in CWP No.4470 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:12889

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.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

December 02, 2024 (Sunil)