Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt proceedings closed; respondents directed to comply with judgment/order dated 01.07.2025 positively within ten days if not already done, failing which contempt would be further aggravated; petitioner given liberty to seek revival of proceedings on continued non-compliance; notice issued to respondents discharged.

Issue for consideration

Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents for intentionally and deliberately disobeying the mandate contained in the judgment/order dated 01.07.2025 passed in CWP No. 10479 of 2025, which required them to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within ten days.

Court's answer

In view of the fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General that the order alleged to have been violated would be complied with within four days if not already done, this Court saw no reason to keep the present contempt proceedings alive.

Ratio / Principle

The contempt proceedings were closed with a direction to the respondent to do the needful in terms of the judgment/order dated 01.07.2025, positively within a period of ten days, if not already done.

Key takeaways

Non-compliance with the said direction would further aggravate the contempt, and the petitioner is at liberty to get the present proceedings revived so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken against the erring officials.ratio¶13
Notice issued to the respondents stands discharged.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition — COPC No.709 of 2025 — alleged intentional disobedience of mandate in judgment/order dated 01.07.2025 in CWP No. 10479 of 2025 (direction to consider and decide petitioner's representation within ten days) — Additional Advocate General fairly stated that the order must have been complied with by now and, if not, would be within four days — proceedings closed with fresh direction to respondents to do the needful in terms of the earlier judgment positively within ten days, failing which contempt would be further aggravated — petitioner at liberty to seek revival of proceedings so that appropriate action is taken against erring officials — notice issued to respondents discharged.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

COPC No.709 of 2025

Date of Decision: 17.07.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Vijay Kumar Sharma …….Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar & another … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Dutt Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant contempt petition, prayer has been 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 judgment/order dated 01.07.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 10479 of 2025, titled Vijay Kumar vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of ten days. Since,

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

2

despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondents failed to do the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings .

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents 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 four days.

Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, 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 01.07.2025, positively within a period of ten days, 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 judgment is not complied with, so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken against the erring officials. Notice issued to the respondents are hereby discharged accordingly.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

July 17,2025 (shankar)