Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1531/2026 of VIJENDER Vs ASHISH KOHLI on 29 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 1531 of 2026 Date of Decision: 29.09.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Vijender & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Ashish Kohli …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep
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. 1531 of 2026
Date of Decision: 29.09.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Vijender & Ors.
……...Petitioners Versus Ashish Kohli
…....Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (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 his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 12.05.2026, rendered in CWP No.6006 of 2026, titled as Vijender and others Vs. 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. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondent for doing the needful, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2
2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondent, 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 three weeks from today.
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, respondent is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, he 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 official. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged.
September 29, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil)
Judge