Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1490/2026 of RAKESH KUMAR Vs RAKESH KANWAR AND ANOTHER on 25 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1490 of 2026 Date of Decision: 25.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Rakesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar & another … Respondents 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.
2026:HHC:41461
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No.1490 of 2026
Date of Decision: 25.09.2026 _______________________________________________________
Rakesh Kumar
…….Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Kanwar & another
… Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kaul and Ms. Sheetal Kaul, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
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 intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 06.01.2026 passed by this Court in CWP No. 225 of 2026, titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment, alleged to have been violated, reveals that this Court, while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
2026:HHC:41461
Court in CWP No. No.1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note above, respondents failed to do the needful in terms of aforesaid judgment, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents, 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 three weeks from today.
4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and accordingly, same are closed with the direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment/order dated 06.01.2026 rendered this Court positively within a period of three weeks, if not already done, failing which, they would further aggravate the contempt. Petitioner is 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. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged accordingly.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 25, 2026 (shankar)