Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1489/2025 of PARVEEN KUMARI Vs RAKESH KANWAR on 31 December 2025
COURT OF HIMACHAL P RADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.1489 of 2025 Date of Decision: 31.12.2025 ___________________________________________________________ Parveen Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus Shri Rakesh Kanwar …....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 P
RADESH, SHIMLA
COPC No.1489 of 2025
Date of Decision: 31.12.2025 ___________________________________________________________ Parveen Kumari
……...Petitioner Versus Shri Rakesh Kanwar
…....Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 06.10.2025, rendered in CWP No.15615 of 2025, whereby this Court passed the following order: “3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by this Court in Madan Lal Sharma case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings
2 already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved.”
2. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondent for doing the needful, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondent, 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 four weeks from today.
4. 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- contemnor is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of four weeks, failing which, respondent 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. December 31, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi)
Judge