Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1295/2026 of AJEET SINGH Vs RAKESH KANWAR AND ANOTHER on 11 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1295 of 2026 Date of Decision: 11.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ Ajeet Singh …….Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar & another … Respondents 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.1295 of 2026
Date of Decision: 11.09.2026 _______________________________________________________
Ajeet Singh
…….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 & Ms. Sheetal Kaul, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates 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 08.05.2026 passed Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5768 of 2026 titled Ajeet Singh 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 12 weeks. Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 as taken note hereinabove, respondents failed to do the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General 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 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 08.05.2026, positively within a period of two 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 11, 2026 (shankar)