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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition closed; respondents-contemnors directed to complete compliance with the judgment dated 08.05.2024 in CWPOA No.1764 of 2019 within six weeks, failing which contempt would be aggravated and the petitioners free to seek revival of the petition.

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents for willfully and intentionally disobeying the directions contained in the judgment dated 08.05.2024 rendered in CWPOA No.1764 of 2019, and how compliance therewith is to be secured.

Court's answer

In view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General that compliance with the violated judgment had been or would be effected, this Court saw no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly closed it.

Ratio / Principle

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

Key takeaways

If compliance is not effected within six weeks, the petitioners 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¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt — COPC No.124 of 2025 (decided 13.03.2025, Sandeep Sharma, J., oral): Petitioners alleged willful disobedience of Coordinate Bench directions dated 08.05.2024 in CWPOA No.1764 of 2019, whereby respondent No.2 was to consider and decide their case within eight weeks. On the learned Additional Advocate General's stand that the violated judgment had been, or would positively be, complied with within six weeks, the High Court closed the contempt petition, directing the respondents-contemnors to effect compliance within six weeks; default would aggravate the contempt, and the petitioners remain at liberty to seek revival of the petition for appropriate action against erring officials. No statutory provisions or precedents were invoked in the judgment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA

COPC No.124 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.03.2025

__________________________________________________________________________ Ashok Kumar and Others ……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar and Another …....Respondents

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. _________________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of present 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 order/judgment dated 08.05.2024, rendered in CWPOA No.1764 of 2019, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the petition with direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the case of the petitioners within eight weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the needful, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that though he has every reason to presume that by now, judgment alleged to have been violated

2

must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be positively complied with within a period of six weeks from today.

Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondentscontemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of six weeks, failing which they would aggravate the contempt and petitioners would be at liberty to get the present petition revived, so that appropriate action in accordance with law

is taken against the erring officials.

March 13, 2025

( Rajeev Raturi )

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge