COPC/973/2015 on 31 December 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA SHIMLA SHIMLA SHIMLA

COPC No. COPC No. COPC No. COPC No. 973 of 2015

Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: 31

31.12.2015 .12.2015 .12.2015 .12.2015

Sh. Sunil Puri

.…Petitioner

Versus Mr. Tarun Sharidhar & another

…Respondents

Coram:

The The The The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. , Judge. , Judge. , Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 ____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. Anup Rattan, Mr. Romesh Verma and Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional Advocate Generals.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice Chief Justice Chief Justice Chief Justice (Oral)

Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, stated at the Bar that the respondents could not comply with the directions dated 11th May, 2011, passed in CWP No. 3176 of 2011 and dated 6th July, 2015, passed in COPC No. 548 of 2015, because the petitioner has not filed representation before the respondents.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that the petitioner has filed representation before the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.

High Court of H.P. 2015:HHC:14411-DB ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 06:09:57 :::CIS

respondents, which is still pending and prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to file a fresh representation before the competent authority and the competent authority may be directed to decide the same in a time bound manner.

3. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of this contempt petition by providing that the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh representation before the competent authority within two weeks from today and thereafter, the competent authority to examine and decide the same within six weeks and report compliance before the Registrar (Judicial).

4. It goes without saying that in case the decision goes against the petitioner, he is at liberty to challenge the same.

5. Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of.

Copy dasti. dasti. dasti. dasti.

( Mansoor Ahmad Mir ) ( Mansoor Ahmad Mir ) ( Mansoor Ahmad Mir ) ( Mansoor Ahmad Mir )

Chief Justice. Chief Justice. Chief Justice. Chief Justice.

December December December December 31, 2015 , 2015 , 2015 , 2015

(Sureshwar Thak Sureshwar Thak Sureshwar Thak ur ur ur) ) ) ) ( hemlata)

Judge. Judge. Judge. Judge.

High Court of H.P. 2015:HHC:14411-DB ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 06:09:57 :::CIS