Bayas Dev Vs Rohan Chand Thakur and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Bayas Dev Vs Rohan Chand Thakur and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt proceedings closed; respondents directed to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 23.05.2024 positively within four weeks, failing which the contempt would be further aggravated; petitioner at liberty to revive the proceedings in case of non-compliance; notices issued to the respondents discharged.

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents for their having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in the judgment/order dated 23.05.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4452 of 2024, and whether that judgment has been complied with.

Court's answer

In view of the fair statement made by learned counsel representing the respondents that the judgment/order dated 23.05.2024 had been complied with or would be complied with within four weeks, the Court saw no reason to keep the present contempt proceedings alive and closed them, directing the respondents to do the needful in terms of the said judgment/order within four weeks if not already done.

Ratio / Principle

Failure to comply with the judgment/order dated 23.05.2024 within four weeks would further aggravate the contempt, and the petitioner is at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case the aforesaid judgment is not complied with, so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials.

Key takeaways

Notices issued to the respondents are discharged.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CONTEMPT OF COURT — alleged disobedience of writ direction — COPC No. 871 of 2024 (oral) — petitioner sought initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for intentionally and deliberately disobeying the mandate of judgment/order dated 23.05.2024 of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 4452 of 2024, titled Bayas Dev vs. HRTC and another, wherein the respondents had been directed to consider the petitioner's case in light of the order/judgment of the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2929 of 2015, tilted Brij Lal and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within three weeks — respondents failed to grant the benefit despite the specific direction — respondents' counsel gave a fair statement that the judgment/order had by now been complied with, or if not, would be complied with within four weeks — Court closed the proceedings, directing compliance within four weeks, failing which the contempt would be further aggravated; petitioner at liberty to revive the proceedings for action against erring officials; notices discharged — Coram: Sandep Sharma, Judge — Decision date: 20.12.2024.

2024:HHC:15393

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

COPC No. 871 of 2024

Date of Decision: 20.12.2024

____________ ___________________________________________ Bayas Dev …….Petitioner Versus Rohan Chand Thakur & Anr. … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 23.05.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4452 of 2024, titled Bayas Dev vs. HRTC and another alongwith connected matters.

Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of order/judgment passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.2929

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2

2024:HHC:15393

of 2015, tilted Brij Lal and others versus State of Himachal

Pradesh and others, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents failed to grant the benefit to the petitioner in terms of aforesaid judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned counsel representing the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid judgment/ order alleged to have been violated, must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of four weeks from today.

Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned counsel representing the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly, same are closed with the direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 23.05.2024, positively within a period of four weeks, if not already done, failing which, they would further aggravate the contempt. Petitioner is at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case aforesaid judgment is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken against

3

2024:HHC:15393

the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby

discharged accordingly.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

December 20, 2024 (shankar)