Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPCT/784/2020 on 30 December 2020
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.
COPCT No.784 of 2020
Decided on 30.12.2020 __________________________________________________________________ Satish Kumar
Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep Bhatnagar
Respondent __________________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioner : Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, Advocate, through Video Conferencing.
For the respondent : Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, through Video Conferencing. __________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (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 having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in judgment dated 26.9.2018, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 5824 of 2018, whereby the Tribunal below having taken note of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 17.7.2014, passed by this Court in CWP No. 3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram v. State of HP and Ors., disposed of the petition with direction to the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
respondent/competent authority to consider the case of the applicant in light of aforesaid judgment and thereafter, grant similar benefit to him in case he is found to be similarly situate within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondent pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
2. Mr. Vikas Rajput, learned counsel for 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 definitely complied with within a period of four weeks from today.
3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court sees no reason to continue with the aforesaid proceedings and accordingly, same are 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 respondent-contemnor. Notice issued to respondent is discharged at this stage.
30th December, 2020
(Sandeep Sharma), manjit
Judge