Chain Singh Vs Onkar Chand Sharma and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Chain Singh Vs Onkar Chand Sharma and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition closed without initiating contempt proceedings; respondents-contemnors directed to comply with the judgment dated 27.5.2024 in CWP No. 3895 of 2024 within three weeks, failing which the contempt would be aggravated and the petitioner free to seek revival of the petition.

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents for their alleged willful and intentional disobedience of the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 27.5.2024 in CWP No. 3895 of 2024.

Court's answer

In view of the Additional Advocate General's stand that the judgment alleged to have been violated had been, or would positively be, complied with within three weeks, the Court saw no reason to keep the contempt petition alive and closed it.

Ratio / Principle

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

COPC No.2 of 2025 (decided 9.1.2025; Sandeep Sharma, J., High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla): Contempt petition by Chain Singh against Onkar Chand Sharma and Ors. alleging willful and intentional disobedience of the directions in the judgment dated 27.5.2024 in CWP No. 3895 of 2024, whereby the Court had disposed of the writ petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within four weeks. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the judgment had been, or would positively be, complied with within three weeks. Taking a fair view of this stand, the Court closed the petition while directing the respondents-contemnors to do the needful in terms of the judgment alleged to have been violated within three weeks, failing which the contempt would be aggravated and the petitioner would be at liberty to get the petition revived for appropriate action against the erring officials.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

COPC No.2 of 2025 Date of Decision: 9.1.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Chain Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Onkar Chand Sharma and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 27.5.2024, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3895 of 2024 (Chain Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.), whereby this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within four weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid

2

direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings.

2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, 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.

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 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.

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