Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1249/2026 of KAMAL KUMAR Vs VISHAL SHARMA on 3 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1249 of 2025 Date of Decision: 3.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Kamal Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Dr. Vishal Sharma …....Respondent 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.1249 of 2025
Date of Decision: 3.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Kamal Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Dr. Vishal Sharma …....Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: 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 respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 24.2.2026 passed in CWP No. 1411 of 2026, titled as Kamal Kumar v. Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, whereby coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide representation of the petitioner within twelve weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings.
2
2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that though he has every reason to 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 the 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 three weeks, 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 officials.
September 3, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge