Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1237/2026 of PRIYANKA VASHIST AND OTHERS Vs M.SUDHA DEVI AND OTHERS on 2 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 1237 of 2026 Date of Decision: 2.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Priyanka Vashist and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Ms. Sudha Devi and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice
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. 1237 of 2026
Date of Decision: 2.9.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Priyanka Vashist and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus Ms. Sudha Devi and Ors.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: Ms. Ambika Thakur, Proxy Counsel.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 30.4.2023 passed in CWP No. 5275 of 2026, titled as Priyanka Vashist and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr., whereby this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide representations of the petitioners within eight weeks. Since despite repeated requests,
2 aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioners are compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings.
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, respondents- contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks, failing which they would aggravate the contempt and petitioners 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 2, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge