Mohinder Singh v. Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

COPC No.1204 of 2026

IN

CWP No.4659 of 2020

Decided on: 17.09.2026 __________________________________________________________

Mohinder Singh

.....Petitioner

Versus

Kamlesh Kumar Pant and others

....Respondents

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? No

For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tamanna Sharma and Ms. Preet Thakur, Advocates.

For the respondents: Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3.

Nemo for respondent No.4.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Heard.

2.

Notice. Mr. Varun Chandel, Learned Additional Advocate General, appears waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.

3.

Petitioner-Mohinder Singh has invoked contempt jurisdiction of this Court, alleging non-compliance of the order dated 15.03.2023 [Annexure

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

P-1] judgment dated

24.04.2023 [Annexure P-2] passed in CWP No.4659 of 2020, titled as Mohinder Singh and another Versus State of H.P. and others, whereby this Court disposed of the writ petition, by directing Respondent No.3 to construct the remaining portion of the road i.e. from Mohotala to Kareri under the Prime Minister Gram Sadak Yojna, within three months from the date of passing of the said judgment.

4.

It is averred that after passing of the judgment, one Shri Ram Dhan had filed writ petition i.e. CWP No.7316 of 2023, titled as Ram Dhan Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, in which, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed an order of status quo qua the suit property, in question, vide order dated 05.10.2023 [Annexure P-3].

5.

On query by this Court, this Court is informed that the interim order dated 05.10.2023 [Annexure P-3] is still in operation.

6.

In this background, this Court is of the considered view, that once the judgment was passed on 24.04.2023 [Annexure P-2], directing to complete

the road, in question, and any collateral/subsequent proceedings an order was passed on 05.10.2023 by this Court, directing that status quo qua the suit property, in question, to be maintained, therefore, the contempt petition is not maintainable. Moreover, there appears to be wilful intentional disobedience of the judgment dated

24.04.2023 [Annexure P-2]. Conversely, the alleged non-implementation as borne out from the material on record is due to interim orders dated 05.10.2023 [Annexure P-3] passed by this Court in subsequent proceedings.

7.

Faced with the above eventuality, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Tamanna Sharma and Ms. Preet Thakur, Advocates, on Instructions, states that instant proceedings may be given a closure, with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, by way of filing execution or to file appropriate application in pending CWP No.7316 of 2023 [Annexure P-3], hereinafter, if so desired. [Statement is Taken on Record].

8.

In these circumstances, instant contempt petition is closed, with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievance(s)

before appropriate authority in appropriate manner, as he deems fit and proper.

9.

Notices issued to the respondents shall stand discharged, accordingly

In aforesaid terms, instant petition and all the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Ranjan Sharma)

Judge September 17, 2026

[Bhardwaj]