Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1395/2026 of SUDERSHAN SINGH Vs RAKESH KANWAR AND OTHERS on 22 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1395 of 2026 Date of Decision: 22.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Sudershan Singh ……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar and Anr. …....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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No.1395 of 2026
Date of Decision: 22.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Sudershan Singh
……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar and Anr.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gambhir Chauhan, 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)
By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 10.11.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.17321 of 2025, titled Sudershan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., whereby afore petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma and Anr. v. State of Himachal
2 Pradesh and Ors., within six weeks. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
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 two weeks from today.
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 two weeks, failing which petitioner would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate action in accordance with law is taken against the erring officials.
September 22, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge