Disposed

Deep Ram and Others v. Devesh Kumar and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2026COPC/1386/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners alleged wilful disobedience of a High Court direction requiring the respondents or competent authority to consider and decide their representations within twelve weeks. After the respondents undertook to comply within three weeks, the Court disposed of the contempt petition with a fresh deadline and allowed it to be revived if compliance did not occur.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to comply with the earlier judgment within three weeks; on failure, the petitioners were permitted to seek revival of the contempt petition for appropriate action against the erring officials.

Deep Ram and Others Vs Devesh Kumar and Others — Contempt of Court | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Date ___________	COPC No.1386 of 2026 of Decision: 21.9.2026 ___________________
	……...Petitioners
Versus
	…....Respondents

¶3

________________________________ Deep Ram and Ors.	_____________________________________ ……...Petitio Versus
Devesh Kumar and Ors.

¶4

Coram

¶5

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

¶6

For the Petitioners: 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 the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 22.5.2026, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.7421 of 2026, titled Deep Ram and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide representations of the petitioners within twelve weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest

¶8

¶9

of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

¶10

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.

¶11

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 petitioners would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials.

¶12

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

Deep Ram and Others v. Devesh Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deep Ram and Others v. Devesh Kumar and Others

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