JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. Mr. Tapan Kumar and Mr. Dhruv Lamba, Advocates have put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and filed Vakalatnama. The same is taken on the record.

2. The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-1970-2025, whereby the following order was passed:-

“4. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction to respondent No.1 to conclude the execution petition expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”

3. A perusal of above shows that no specific time period was granted to respondent No.1 to conclude the execution petition. Still the petitioner has preferred the present contempt against the respondents. The petitioner could not establish any willful, deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondent. Despite having due knowledge of the legal position, the petitioner chose to file present contempt proceedings and continued to pursue the same without any justifiable or tenable grounds of law. Such conduct amounts to gross abuse of the process of law and unnecessarily adds to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court.

4. Normally when there is apparent contempt by the official respondents, this Court imposes costs to be deducted from their salary for non-compliance of the order. The present case is the set example of the litigants, who are in the habit of blaming/targeting the official respondents unnecessarily. A perusal of the file shows that there is no disobedience by the respondents, rather, they are doing their duties effectively and efficiently.

5. A perusal of the whole file of this case shows that the petitioner has filed the present contempt petition by blaming the official respondents by name. Such conduct amounts to gross abuse of the process of law and unnecessarily adds to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court.

6. It is well settled that contempt jurisdiction is required to be exercised with great caution and circumspection and only in cases where willful and intentional disobedience of an order of the Court is clearly made out. The jurisdiction cannot be invoked to settle scores or to unnecessarily harass officials, particularly when the record reflects compliance with the directions issued by this Court.

7. Similar matter has already been dealt with by this Court in COCP-3579-2025 decided on 24.07.2025 titled as “Payal Chaudhary V/s KAP Sinha IAS and others”, while placing reliance on the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Dalip Singh V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114, Subrata Roy Sahara V/s Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470 and K.C. Tharakan V/s State Bank of India & Ors. Passed in Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).27458/2022”. The relevant paragraphs of Payal Chaudhary (supra) are reproduced as under:-

“9. It is evident that the petitioner has engaged in what can only be described as a frivolous and vexatious litigation spree, seemingly driven by a misplaced sense of grievance. Such conduct constitutes a gross abuse of the judicial process and contributes significantly to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court. The tendency of litigants to misuse the judicial forum by engaging in forum shopping, filing repetitive and meritless petitions, and adopting dilatory tactics undermines the very foundation of our legal system and clogs the administration of justice.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114 has cautioned against this emerging category of unscrupulous litigants who, devoid of respect for truth, resort to falsehood and unethical practices in their pursuit of relief. The Supreme Court emphatically held that such litigants, who seek to pollute the stream of justice or who dare to touch the fountain of justice with uncl