Disposed¶7

Banita Devi and Ors. v. M. Sudha Devi and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Jan 2025COPC/4/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

COPC No. 4 of 2025; contempt of court; contempt petition; non-compliance with writ direction; Banita Devi and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.; CWP No. 8643 of 2024; judgment dated 23.8.2024; representation to be decided within three weeks; undertaking by Additional Advocate General; petition closed with liberty to revive; action against erring officials; Justice Sandeep Sharma; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decision dated 9.1.2025.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition closed; respondents-contemnors directed to comply with the judgment dated 23.8.2024 in CWP No. 8643 of 2024 within three weeks, failing which contempt would be aggravated and the petitioners at liberty to seek revival of the petition for appropriate action against the erring officials. ¶7

Banita Devi and Ors. Vs M. Sudha Devi and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents for failure to comply with the direction contained in the judgment dated 23.8.2024 in CWP No. 8643 of 2024, whereby they were required to decide the petitioners' representation within a period of three weeks.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

In view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General that compliance with the violated judgment would positively be made within three weeks, the Court saw no reason to keep the present petition alive and closed the same.

¶7

Key takeaways

The respondents-contemnors were directed to do the needful in terms of the judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks, failing which they would aggravate the contempt and the petitioners would be at liberty to get the petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition (COPC No. 4 of 2025) — Non-compliance with earlier direction — Petitioners alleged that the direction contained in the judgment dated 23.8.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench in CWP No. 8643 of 2024 (Banita Devi and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.), requiring the respondents to decide their representation within three weeks, was never complied with despite repeated requests — Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that compliance had presumably been made and, if not, would positively be made within three weeks — Accepting the fair stand, the Court closed the contempt petition while directing the respondents-contemnors to comply within three weeks, failing which contempt would stand aggravated and the petitioners would be free to seek revival of the petition for appropriate action against the erring officials.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

COPC No. 4 of 2025 Date of Decision: 9.1.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Banita Devi and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus M. Sudha Devi and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶3

By way of instant Contempt Petition, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having not complied with mandate contained in the judgment dated 23.8.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of his Court in CWP No. 8643 of 2024 titled as Banita Devi and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. , whereby direction came to be issued to the respondents to decide the representation filed by the petitioners within a period of three weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction

¶4

¶5

never came to be complied with, petitioners are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶6

2. 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 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.

¶7

3. 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 three 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.

¶8

January 9, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge

Banita Devi and Ors. v. M. Sudha Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banita Devi and Ors. v. M. Sudha Devi 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

Prem Chand Heer Vs the State of Hp and Another

M/S Gagan Cheical Industries Vs the State of Hp and Others

Madan Lal Vs the Divisional Commissioner Kangra and Others

Daleep Singh Negi Vs State of Hp

Chain Singh Vs Onkar Chand Sharma and Others

Jahir Abbas Vs the Dc Kangra and Others