Disposed¶13

Hari Krishan v. Nipun Jindal and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Apr 2025COPC/263/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh HC; COPC No.263 of 2025; contempt petition; Hari Krishan v. Nipun Jindal & Anr.; non-compliance with directions dated 03.01.2025 in CWP No.16439 of 2024 (representation to be decided in eight weeks); petition closed; three-week compliance window; contempt to aggravate on default; liberty to revive petition; Justice Sandeep Sharma; decided 04.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed without initiation of contempt proceedings; respondents given three weeks to comply with the judgment dated 03.01.2025 rendered in CWP No.16439 of 2024, failing which contempt would aggravate and the petitioner would be free to seek revival of the petition. ¶13

Hari Krishan Vs Nipun Jindal and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents for wilful and intentional disobedience of the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 03.01.2025 rendered in CWP No.16439 of 2024, requiring them to decide the petitioner's representation within eight weeks.

¶10

Court's answer

In view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel representing the respondents, the Court saw no reason to keep the present contempt petition alive and accordingly closed it.

¶13

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 three weeks from the date of the order.

¶13

Key takeaways

On failure to comply within three weeks, the contempt would stand aggravated and the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of the petition so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition (COPC No.263 of 2025) before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh alleging wilful and intentional disobedience by the respondents of the directions in order/judgment dated 03.01.2025 rendered in CWP No.16439 of 2024, whereby the Coordinate Bench had directed them to decide the petitioner's representation within eight weeks. Relying on the fair stand of the respondents' counsel that the judgment had been or would be complied with within three weeks, the Court (Sandeep Sharma, J.) closed the petition, directing the respondents-contemnors to do the needful within three weeks, failing which the contempt would aggravate and the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival for appropriate action against the erring officials.

¶1

2025:HHC:9256

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

COPC No.263 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.04.2025

¶4

____________________________ Hari Krishan	___________________	______________________ ……...Petitioner
	Versus
Nipun Jindal & Anr.		…....Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

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

¶7

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.

¶8

For the respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate.

¶9

___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶10

By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 03.01.2025, rendered in CWP No.16439 of 2024, whereby Coordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in light of averments made therein within a period of 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, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶11

¶12

Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of 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.

¶13

Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel representing the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents-contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks from today, 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.

¶14

April 04, 2025 (Sunil)

¶15

(Sandeep Sharma),

¶16

Judge

Hari Krishan v. Nipun Jindal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Krishan v. Nipun Jindal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Som Dutt Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Sanjay Kumar and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Rakesh Sharma and Ors. Vs the State of Hp and Others

Poonam Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others

Raghubir Singh Vs the Hp State Forest Corporation and Another