Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1481/2026 of SURESH KUMAR Vs RAKESH KANWAR on 25 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1481 of 2026 Date of Decision: 25.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Suresh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar … Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether
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:41463 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No.1481 of 2026
Date of Decision: 25.09.2026 _______________________________________________________
Suresh Kumar
…….Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Kanwar
… Respondent
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.R. Dhiman, Advocate.
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 respondent for his having intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the mandate contained in judgment/order dated 22.04.2026 passed by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5832 of 2026, titled Suresh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
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 petitioner within a period of six weeks. Since, despite 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
2026:HHC:41463 there being specific direction to do the needful, as taken note above, respondent 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 22.04.2026 rendered Co-ordinate Bench of this Court positively within a period of three weeks, if not already done, failing which, he 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. Notice issued to the respondent is hereby discharged accordingly.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 25, 2026 (shankar)