Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1597/2026 of ADITYA SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs ISHA THAKUR on 6 October 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1597 of 2026 Date of Decision: 06.10.2026 _______________________________________________________ Aditya Sharma & others …….Petitioners Versus Ms. Isha Thakur … Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No.1597 of 2026
Date of Decision: 06.10.2026 _______________________________________________________
Aditya Sharma & others
…….Petitioners
Versus
Ms. Isha Thakur
… Respondent
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate.
___________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
By way of instant contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for her having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 02.07.2026 passed Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 12769 of 2024 titled Aditya Sharma and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another.
2. 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 petitioners in light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1567 of 2017, titled Sidha Raju versus State of Karnataka, decided on 28.09.2021 as well as in light of notification dated 27.07.2024, within a period of eight weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note hereinabove, respondent 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 failed to do the needful, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
3. Mr. Ravinder Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent 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 two weeks from today.
4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned counsel for the respondent, 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 02.07.2026, positively within a period of two weeks, if not already done, failing which, she 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. Notice issued to the respondent is hereby discharged accordingly.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge October 06, 2026 (shankar)