High CourtsSingle Bench

Harminder vs Sandeep Bhatnagar And Anr

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 30 December 2020 · Citation: (2020) 12 SHI CK 0232

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPC No. 281 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 345 words

Sandeep Sharma, J

1.

By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the

respondents for having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in judgment dated 17.10.2019, passed by the Division Bench of this

Court in CWP No. 2915 of 2019, whereby the Division Bench of this Court 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 respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner 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 copy of the order/judgment. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid

direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

2.

Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate, while accepting the notice on behalf of the respondents, 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 six weeks from today.

3.

Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition

alive and accordingly, same is closed. However, respondents-contemnors are directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been

violated within a period of six weeks, 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. Notices issued to respondents are discharged at this stage.