Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/1681/2026 on 15 October 2026
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.1681 of 2026
Date of Decision: 15.10.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Sapna Rani & Ors.
……...Petitioners Versus Rakesh Kanwar & Anr.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Ms. Deepmala Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate 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 petitioners for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in the order/judgment dated 25.06.2021, rendered in CWP No.2651 of 2021, titled as Ms. Sapna Rani & others Vs. State of H.P. and another, whereby Division Bench of this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in light of judgments passed in CWP (T) No.5253 of 2008, titled as Narain Singh Vs. State of H.P and others and in LPA No.146 of 2010, titled as State of H.P. & others Vs. Narin Singh within a period of four weeks. Since despite there being aforesaid direction, no steps, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:03:34 :::CIS
2
respondents for doing the needful, petitioners have 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.
October 15, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (Sunil)
Judge High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:03:34 :::CIS