MANOJ KUMAR v. ASHISH KOHLI
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Himachal Pradesh judgment dated 2026-01-02. MANOJ KUMAR v. ASHISH KOHLI. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 1536 of 2025 Date of Decision: 2. 1. 2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Manoj Kumar ……... Petitioner Versus Ashish Kohli ….... Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present contempt petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent for his having willfully and intentionally disobeyed the directions contained in order/judgment dated 24. 9. 2025 passed in CWP No. 15370 of 2025, titled as Manoj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.
, whereby coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed in CWP No. 521of 2024, titled as “Poonam Thakur and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. ” within eight weeks. Since despite repeated requests, aforesaid direction never came to be complied with, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, 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 three weeks from today. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no reason to keep the present petition alive and accordingly, same is closed.
However, respondent is directed to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been violated within a period of three weeks, failing which he 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. January 2, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge
Source: High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.