IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA COPC No. 185 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.09.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Madan Gopal. .....Petitioner. Versus Srikant Baldi & another. .....Contemnors. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the contemnors: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The learned Additional Advocate General has filed a communication dated 12th September, 2011, addressed to the learned Advocate General, Himachal Pradesh, by the Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, text whereof is as under: “I have the honour to refer to above-mentioned contempt petition which is pending adjudication before this Hon'ble Court. In this regard it is submitted the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Dr. O.P. Sharma, Director of Higher Education has been impleaded as party erroneously as the cadre of the petitioner is under the control of the Director of Elementary Education. The Director of Higher Education has no role to play in the instant matter. It is further submitted that as per the information received from the Director of Elementary Education, the judgment dated 26.07.2010 has been implemented in its letter and spirit. You are, therefore, requested to apprise the Hon'ble Court accordingly.” 2. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as the judgment dated 26.07.2010, which is subject matter of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... present proceedings, has already been implemented by the concerned department. 3. However, while parting I deem it necessary to observe that the petitioner has recklessly arrayed the Director of Higher Education by name as respondent/contemnor No. 2 to the present petition, when in fact, the matter relates to the Director, Elementary Education. Such act on the part of the petitioner is highly deprecable. However, I restrain myself from proceeding against the petitioner for this lapse, hoping that good sense would prevail on the litigants as also lawyers in such matters, who shall employ due care and caution in like matters in future. 4. The petition so also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 14th September, 2011 (virender)