Disposed¶12

Naresh Kumar and Another v. Nipun Jindal and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC9 May 2025COPC/421/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

COPC No.421 of 2025; contempt petition; disobedience of judgment/order dated 29.11.2024 in CWP No. 14070 of 2024 (Naresh Kumar v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation); CWPOA No.2343 of 2020 (Vikram Singh v. HRTC); compliance within three weeks; proceedings closed; revival liberty; notices discharged; Justice Sandeep Sharma; decided 09.05.2025; Himachal Pradesh High Court.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings closed; respondents directed to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 29.11.2024 within three weeks if not already done, failing which the contempt would further aggravate; petitioners at liberty to seek revival of proceedings; notices issued to the respondents discharged. ¶12

Naresh Kumar and Another Vs Nipun Jindal and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents for their alleged intentional and deliberate disobedience of the mandate contained in the judgment/order dated 29.11.2024 passed in CWP No. 14070 of 2024, and what action should follow.

¶4

Court's answer

In view of the fair statement of the respondents' counsel that the judgment/order dated 29.11.2024 would be complied with within three weeks if not already done, the Court saw no reason to keep the contempt proceedings alive and closed the same, directing compliance within three weeks, failing which the contempt would further aggravate.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners were granted liberty to get the contempt proceedings revived in case the judgment/order dated 29.11.2024 is not complied with, so that appropriate action in accordance with law may be taken against the erring officials.

¶12

Key takeaways

Notices issued to the respondents were discharged upon closure of the proceedings.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition (COPC No.421 of 2025) — Alleged non-compliance with direction in judgment/order dated 29.11.2024 in CWP No. 14070 of 2024 (Naresh Kumar and another vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another), whereby respondents were to decide the petitioners' representation in light of Division Bench ruling in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020, Vikram Singh versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation, within six weeks — Counsel for respondents stated compliance had/would be effected within three weeks — Held: In view of the fair statement, proceedings closed with direction to respondents to comply within three weeks, failing which contempt would aggravate; petitioners at liberty to seek revival; notices discharged.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

COPC No.421 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.05.2025

¶3

____________ ___________________________________________ Naresh Kumar & another …….Petitioners Versus Nipun Jindal & another … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Dixit Sahotra, Advocate vice Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶4

By way of instant contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 29.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 14070 of 2024, titled Naresh Kumar and another vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another.

¶5

Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgment

¶6

passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020,

¶7

titled as Vikram Singh versus Himachal Road Transport

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

Corporation alongwith connected matters, within a period of six weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents failed to do the needful, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings .

¶11

Mr. Dixit Sahotra, Advocate vice Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, states that though he 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.

¶12

Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly, same are closed with the direction to the respondent to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 29.11.2024, positively within a period of three weeks, if not already done, failing which, they would further aggravate the contempt. Petitioners are at liberty to get the present proceedings revived in case aforesaid judgment 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.

¶13

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶14

May 09,2025 (shankar)

Naresh Kumar and Another v. Nipun Jindal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kumar and Another 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Ram Vs the Hpsfdc and Others

Rajinder Kumar Vs Hrtc and Another

Hima Devi Vs Municipal Counsel Sundernagar

Parvesh Sharma Vs Hrtc and Another

Ramesh Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Kashmir Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others