Disposed¶20

Santosh Kumari and Ors. v. Rakesh Kanwar and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Jan 2025COPC/12/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil contempt petition; COPC; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; willful disobedience of writ court directions; non-compliance with judgment dated 30.08.2024 in CWP No.1555 of 2024; direction to consider claim in light of Taj Mohammad (CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided 03.08.2023); six-week compliance direction; four-week compliance undertaking by Additional Advocate General; petition disposed of; liberty to revive contempt proceedings; action against erring officials; Santosh Kumari; Rakesh Kanwar; State of HP; Sandeep Sharma, J.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to comply with the judgment dated 30.08.2024 in CWP No.1555 of 2024 within four weeks, if not already done; liberty reserved to the petitioners to seek revival of the contempt proceedings for appropriate action against erring officials in case of failure. ¶20

Santosh Kumari and Ors. Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the judgment dated 30.08.2024 in CWP No.1555 of 2024, warranting initiation of contempt proceedings against them.

¶15

Court's answer

On the fair stand of the learned Additional Advocate General that the judgment/order alleged to have been violated must by now have been complied with in its totality, and if not, would be complied with within four weeks, the Court saw no reason to keep the present petition alive.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The contempt petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of the judgment alleged to have been violated, positively within four weeks if not already done; failing which, the petitioners would be at liberty to get the proceedings revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against erring officials.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition (COPC No. 12 of 2025) alleging willful and intentional disobedience by the respondents of the judgment dated 30.08.2024 in CWP No.1555 of 2024 (Santosh Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of HP & Anr.), whereby the respondents were directed to consider and decide the petitioners' case in light of Taj Mohammad & Ors. Vs. State of HP & Ors., CWP No.2004 of 2017 (Division Bench, decided 03.08.2023), within six weeks. The learned Additional Advocate General stated that the judgment alleged to have been violated must have been complied with in its totality, and if not, would be complied with within four weeks. Held: in view of this fair stand, the Court saw no reason to keep the petition alive and disposed of it with a direction to do the needful in terms of the judgment alleged to have been violated within four weeks, if not already done, failing which the petitioners were at liberty to seek revival of the proceedings for appropriate action against erring officials in accordance with law.

¶1

2025:HHC:2728

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

COPC No. 12 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.01.2025

¶4

Santosh Kumari & Ors.

……...Petitioners

Versus

Rakesh Kanwar & Anr.

…....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?

¶12

For the petitioners: Mr. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate.

¶13

For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State.

¶14

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶15

By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 30.08.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1555 of 2024, titled as Santosh Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of HP & Anr.

¶16

Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that this Court having taken note of the statement made by learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners that interest of justice would be served, in case the respondents are

¶17

¶18

directed to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of judgment dated 03.08.2023 rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017 alongwith connected matters, titled Taj Mohammad & Ors. Vs. State of HP & Ors., disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners, in the light of aforesaid judgment within a period of six weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note above, respondents failed to consider the case of the petitioners in light of Taj Mohammad's case (supra) , petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶19

Learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of 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 in its totality, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of four weeks from today.

¶20

Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the direction to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated, positively within a period of four weeks, if not already done, failing which, petitioners would be at liberty to get the

¶21

¶22

present proceedings revived, so that appropriate action, in accordance

¶23

with law, is taken against erring officials.

¶24

January 10, 2025 Sunil

¶25

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Santosh Kumari and Ors. v. Rakesh Kanwar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumari and Ors. v. Rakesh Kanwar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daleep Singh Negi Vs State of Hp

Chain Singh Vs Onkar Chand Sharma and Others

Jahir Abbas Vs the Dc Kangra and Others

Kuldeep Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Hpsedc Vs the M/S Omega Ites Solutions and Others

Collector Land Acquisition and Another Vs Beant Kaur and Others