Dismissed

Priyanka Dhiman v. M.Sudha Devi and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Sept 2026COPC/1315/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Contempt Petition, the petitioner sought initiation of proceedings for willful disobedience of a prior order. The respondents admitted likely compliance. The Court closed the petition but directed compliance within two weeks, with liberty to revive contempt proceedings if violated.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition closed; respondents directed to comply with prior order within two weeks; notice discharged.

Priyanka Dhiman Vs M.Sudha Devi and Others — Contempt of Court | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

COPC No. 1315 of 2026 Date of Decision: 15.09.2026

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Priyanka Dhiman ……...Petitioner Versus Ms. Sudha Devi & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondentsState. Ms. Samriti Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ___________________________________________________________________________

¶4

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

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 willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 28.04.2026, rendered in CWP No.5335 of 2026, titled as Priyanka Dhiman Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others , whereby Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed that representation made by the petitioner shall be decided by the competent authority in the light of averments made therein within twelve weeks by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. Since despite there being aforesaid

¶6

¶7

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.

¶8

2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and 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 two weeks from today.

¶9

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of two 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. Notice issued to the respondents are discharged.

¶10

September 15, 2026

¶11

(Sunil)

¶12

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Priyanka Dhiman v. M.Sudha Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Dhiman v. M.Sudha Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases