Disposed

Rajeev Kumar v. Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2026COPC/1367/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought initiation of contempt proceedings for alleged non-compliance with directions requiring the respondents or competent authority to consider and decide his representation within eight weeks. The respondents undertook to comply with the judgment within three weeks. The Court disposed of the petition with that direction, allowing revival if compliance did not occur.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to comply with the judgment alleged to have been violated within three weeks; the petitioner was permitted to revive the petition and pursue appropriate legal action if they failed to do so.

Rajeev Kumar Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another — Contempt of Court | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Date ___________	COPC No.1367 of 2026 of Decision: 21.9.2026 ___________________
	……...Petitioner
Versus
	…....Respondents

¶3

________________________________ Rajeev Kumar	_____________________________________ ……...Petiti Versus
Rakesh Kanwar and Anr.

¶4

Coram

¶5

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

¶6

For the Petitioner: Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶7

By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by

¶8

the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 18.12.2024, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.13615 of 2024, titled Rajeev Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide representation of the petitioner within eight weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the

¶9

¶10

respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶11

2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to presume and believe that by now, order/judgment sought to be executed, must have been complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied with within a period of three weeks from today.

¶12

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks, failing which 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.

¶13

September 21, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge

Rajeev Kumar v. Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar v. Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases