High CourtsSingle Bench

Ranjeet Singh vs Yunis Khan And Another

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 11 September 2020 · Citation: (2020) 09 SHI CK 0148

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 12
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPC No. 152 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 · 343 words

Sandeep Sharma, J

1.

By way of present petition filed under S.12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent for willful and deliberate disobedience of judgment dated 21.1.2020 passed by this Court in CWP No. 423 of 2020 titled Ranjeet Singh vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another, whereby this Court, having taken note of the statement made by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the case of petitioner is squarely covered by judgment dated 17.7.2014, rendered by this Court in CWP No. 3050/2014, Nek Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to extend benefit of aforesaid judgment to the petitioner, if on verification he is found to be similarly situate person, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken by the respondent in pursuance to judgment (supra), petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to take appropriate action against the respondent, in accordance with law.

2.

Mr. Ajay Chauhan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, fairly states that though he has every reason to believe that by now judgment in question must have been complied with by the respondent, but if not, same would be complied within a period of two weeks from today.

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 respondents to do the needful, if not already done, in terms of judgment in question, within a period of two weeks from today. Needless to say, petitioner shall be at liberty to get the contempt petition revived, in case, respondents fail to comply with the judgment in question, so that appropriate action is taken against the erring officials. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged.