Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1206/2026 of NEENA Vs RAKESH KANWAR AND ANOTHER on 31 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 1206 of 2026 Date of Decision: 31.08.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Neena ……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar & 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. 1206 of 2026
Date of Decision: 31.08.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Neena
……...Petitioner Versus Rakesh Kanwar & Anr.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (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 willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 12.12.2025, rendered in CWP No.19525 of 2025, titled as Neena Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed in CWP No. 4830 of 2023, titled as Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., within six weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for doing the
2
needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that though he has every reason to believe and 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 learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment, alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks from today, failing which, they 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. Notice issued to the respondents are discharged.
August 31, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil)
Judge