Disposed¶6

Hem Singh v. Rohan Chand Thakuir and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Mar 2025COPC/131/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; COPC No.131 of 2025; Hem Singh v. Rohan Chand Thakur and Ors.; Justice Sandeep Sharma; decided 17.3.2025; contempt petition; wilful and intentional disobedience; non-compliance of directions dated 23.10.2024 in CWP No. 10024 of 2024 (Hem Singh v. HRTC and Anr.); representation to be considered and decided within eight weeks; compliance undertaken within three weeks; petition closed; liberty to revive; contempt to stand aggravated on failure.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed; respondents-contemnors directed to comply with the judgment dated 23.10.2024 in CWP No. 10024 of 2024 within three 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. ¶6

Hem Singh Vs Rohan Chand Thakuir and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

COPC No.131 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.3.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Hem Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Rohan Chand Thakur and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 23.10.2024, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 10024 of 2024 (Hem Singh v. HRTC and Anr.), whereby this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within eight weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶4

¶5

2. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the 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 three weeks from today.

¶6

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel for the respondents, 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 three 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.

¶7

March 17, 2025 (manjit)

¶8

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Hem Singh v. Rohan Chand Thakuir and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hem Singh v. Rohan Chand Thakuir 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

Kaushalya Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Charanjeet Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ashok Kumar and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Hira Lal Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Hem Raj Vs State of Hp and Others

Anju Patyal Vs the State of Hp and Others