CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Thakur Dass vs Ram Subhag Singh And Ors

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 13 July 2020 · Citation: (2020) 07 SHI CK 0237

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Sharma, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPCT No. 623 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 · 332 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 order/judgment dated 7.11.2017, passed by the Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA(M) No. 564 of 2017, 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 5.7.2017, rendered by the Tribunal in OA No. 3499 of 2016, Devki Devi v. State of HP and Ors., disposed of the petition with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant strictly in light of aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court 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 respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

2.

Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, 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 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 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 four 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 against the erring officials. Notices issued to respondents are discharged at this stage.