Disposed¶9

Sanjay Kumar and Others v. Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Apr 2025CMP/5524/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revival/contempt application disposed of: representation directed to be considered by judgment dated 06.01.2025 was considered and rejected vide office order dated 18.03.2025; contempt proceedings confined to compliance, correctness of the compliance order held non-examinable in contempt; liberty reserved to petitioners to challenge the compliance order elsewhere. Bench: Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Decided 03.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law, laying challenge to the order passed in purported compliance of the judgment alleged to have been violated. ¶9

Sanjay Kumar and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether anything remains to be adjudicated in the application seeking revival of COPC No.930 of 2024, given that the petitioners' representation was considered and rejected vide office order dated 18.03.2025. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

Having perused the office order dated 18.03.2025, the Court agreed with the Additional Advocate General that, the petitioners' representation having been duly considered and rejected, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The only direction in the judgment dated 06.01.2025 was to consider the case of the petitioner, and that consideration has been carried out.

¶8

Key takeaways

Correctness of an order passed in purported compliance of a judgment cannot be gone into in contempt proceedings, which are limited to compliance of an order passed by the Court.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CMP No.5524 of 2025 in COPC No.930 of 2024 - Sanjay Kumar and others v. Rakesh Kanwar and another - decided 03.04.2025 by Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Applicants sought revival of COPC No.930 of 2024 alleging that despite the specific direction in judgment dated 06.01.2025 to consider their representation, needful had not been done. Before notices issued, the State produced office order dated 18.03.2025 showing the representation was duly considered and rejected. Held: (i) the only direction in the judgment was to consider the petitioners' case, which was done; (ii) correctness of an order passed in purported compliance of a judgment cannot be examined in contempt proceedings, which are limited to compliance of an order passed by the Court. Nothing remained to be adjudicated; the application was disposed of, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to challenge the compliance order in appropriate proceedings before an appropriate court.

¶1

Sanjay Kumar and others vs. Rakesh Kanwar and another CMP No.5524 of 2025 in COPC No.930 of 2024

¶2

03.04.2025

¶3

Present Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State.

¶4

By way of instant application, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicants for revival of COPC No.930 of 2024 on account of the fact that despite there being specific direction contained in judgment dated 06.01.2025, needful has not been done by the respondents.

¶5

Before notices could be issued in the instant application, learned Additional Advocate General has made available copy of office order dated 18.03.2025, to state that representation of the petitioners in terms of the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated was duly considered and rejected. Learned Additional Advocate General states that since there is only direction to consider the representation filed by the petitioners and respondents having taken note of the judgment pressed into service by the petitioners, has already rejected the representation, no action of the respondents can be said to be contemptuous.

¶6

Having perused copy of aforesaid order dated 18.03.2025, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned

¶7

Additional Advocate General that nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings.

¶8

Though, learned counsel representing the petitioners attempted to argue that consideration order is not in conformity with the judgment alleged to have been violated, however only direction in the judgment was to consider the case of the petitioner, which has been considered. Further correctness of order passed in purported compliance of judgment in question cannot be gone into in contempt proceedings, same being limited to compliance of an order passed by the Court.

¶9

Consequently, in view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present application and accordingly same is disposed of. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, laying therein challenge to the order passed in purported compliance of the judgment alleged to have been violated.

¶10

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶11

April 03,2025 (shankar)

Sanjay Kumar and Others v. Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar and Others v. Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dalip Singh Vs the Hpsebl and Another

Chaman Lal Vs Hrtc and Another

Bhagu Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Som Dutt Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Jai Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others