High CourtsSingle Bench

Ram Charan vs Sandeep Bhatnagar

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 10 July 2020 · Citation: (2020) 07 SHI CK 0259

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 215 · Contempt Of Court (Himachal Pradesh) Rules, 1996 — Rule 10, 12
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPC(T) No. 597 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

4 paragraphs · 340 words

Sandeep Sharma, J

1.

By way of present petition filed under Rule 10/12 of the Contempt of Courts Rules, read with Art. 215 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful and deliberate disobedience of order dated 16.4.2018 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1877 of 2018, titled Ram Charan v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another, whereby learned Tribunal having taken note of the statement made by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by judgment dated 8.3.2018 rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 6309 of 2017, Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others and connected matters, disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the respondent to extend the benefit of aforesaid judgment to the petitioner, if he is found to be similarly situate, within a period of three months, from the date of production of certified copy of order. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken by the respondent, petitioner has instituted present proceedings, praying therein for taking appropriate action against the respondent.

2.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent states that though she has every reason to believe that by now order in question must have been complied with, but if not, same would be complied with, within four weeks.

3.

Having taken note of the fair stand adopted by learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, this Court sees no reason to keep the present proceedings alive and same are closed with a direction to the respondent to do the needful, if not already done, in terms of order alleged to have been violated, within a period of four weeks from today. Needless to say, petitioner shall be at liberty to get the contempt petition revived, in case, respondent fails to comply with the order in question, so that appropriate action is taken against the erring officials. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged.