1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.19 of 2009 Decided on: May 4, 2009. Asha Sharma …..Petitioner. VERSUS Ramsubhag Singh & anr …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For respondents: Mr.Naresh Kaul Advocate. Per R.B. Misra, Judge (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted by Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate that he has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 in the Registry. If filed, be taken on record. 2. Present contempt petition has been preferred, with a prayer that the order dated 26th May, 2008 passed in Civil Writ Petition 514/2003 (Asha Sharma Vs. H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Ltd & another) has not been complied with. Following directions were given on 26.5.2008 by this court in para-5, which reads as below: “5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 23.5.2003 was passed behind the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 back and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. For lack of observance of principle of natural justice, the order dated 9.3.1989 cannot be legally sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.5.2003 is also not legally sustainable. Therefore, it is set aside. However, liberty is given to the respondent to hear the grievance of the petitioner and pass speaking order after affording him proper opportunity of hearing within two months from today after hearing the petitioner or her representative and the departmental representative also.” 3. It appears that in compliance to the above said directions, the Managing Director of H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Limited (in short ‘Corporation’) has provided personal hearing to the counsel for the petitioner, has also perused the records and proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 27.2.1989, has also considered the relevant records and in consonance to the principles of natural justice and in view of the directions given by this court in our order dated 26th May, 2008, has passed the order dated 21.8.2008. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is erroneous wherein the spirit of the order dated 26th May, 2008 has been circumvented. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the order dated 21.8.2008, passed by Managing Director of the said ‘Corporation’. We are of the considered view that in compliance to the direction of the order dated 26th May, 2008, the said order dated 21.8.2008 has 3 been passed. We have no occasion to comment on the merits of the said order having been passed. We are of the considered view that no contempt is made out after passing of the order dated 21.8.2008 by the Managing Director of the Corporation, as such, the contempt petition is dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), Judge ( Sanjay Karol), Judge. 4th May, 2009(sl)