Disposed¶16

Jai Lal Rana v. Rohan Chand Thakur and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Mar 2025COPC/148/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court contempt matter COPC No.148 of 2025 (decided 19.03.2025) by Justice Sandep Sharma concerning alleged non-compliance with Co-ordinate Bench order dated 21.11.2024 in CWP No. 10873 of 2024, Jai Lal Rana vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another, which had directed decision on the petitioner's representation within eight weeks. Proceedings closed after respondents' counsel undertook compliance within three weeks; direction to comply within three weeks, liberty to revive proceedings on default, notices discharged.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings closed; respondents directed to do the needful in terms of order dated 21.11.2024 within three weeks if not already done; petitioner permitted to seek revival of proceedings on non-compliance; notices to respondents discharged. ¶16

Jai Lal Rana Vs Rohan Chand Thakur and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents committed contempt by intentionally and deliberately disobeying the mandate contained in the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 10873 of 2024. +1 more

¶8

Ratio / Principle

In view of the fair statement made by the learned proxy counsel for the respondents, the Court saw no reason to keep the contempt proceedings alive and closed them.

¶16

Key takeaways

The respondents were directed to do the needful in terms of the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court positively within a period of three weeks, if not already done, failing which the contempt would further aggravate.ratio¶16
The petitioner was held at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case the order dated 21.11.2024 is not complied with, so that appropriate action in accordance with law can be taken against the erring officials.ratio¶16
Notices issued to the respondents were discharged.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition (COPC No.148 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, decided 19.03.2025, Sandeep Sharma, J.) filed by Jai Lal Rana against Rohan Chand Thakur & another alleging intentional and deliberate disobedience of the Co-ordinate Bench order dated 21.11.2024 in CWP No. 10873 of 2024 (Jai Lal Rana vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another), whereby the respondents were directed to decide the petitioner's representation within eight weeks. On the respondents' proxy counsel stating that the order must have been complied with and, if not, would be complied with within three weeks, the Court closed the proceedings, directed compliance with the order dated 21.11.2024 positively within three weeks (failure aggravating the contempt), preserved the petitioner's liberty to seek revival of the proceedings in case of non-compliance, and discharged the notices issued to the respondents.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

COPC No.148 of 2025

¶3

Date of Decision: 19.03.2025

¶4

____________ ___________________________________________ Jai Lal Rana …….Petitioner Versus Rohan Chand Thakur& another … Respondents Coram:

¶5

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

¶6

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Proxy counsel vice Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Lalita Sharma, Proxy Counsel vice Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶7

By way of instant contempt petition, prayer has been

¶8

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 order dated 21.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 10873 of 2024, titled Jai Lal Rana vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another.

¶9

Careful perusal of aforesaid order, alleged to have been

¶10

violated, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to decide the representation

¶11

of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. Since, despite there

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note above, respondents failed to do the needful in terms of aforesaid judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶15

Ms. Lalita Sharma, learned proxy counsel representing the respondents, states that though she 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 three weeks from today.

¶16

Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned proxy 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 order dated 21.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court positively within a period of three 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 order is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged accordingly.

¶17

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶18

March 19,2025 (shankar)

Jai Lal Rana v. Rohan Chand Thakur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Lal Rana v. Rohan Chand Thakur 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

Rajinder Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Manoj Kumar Vs the Hrtc and Another

Kailash Chand and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Bal Krishan Vs the Hrtc and Another

Gurmail Singh Vs Cskhpkv

Surinder Kumar and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others