##PAGE1##

CACP-33-2025 (O&M) 1

243

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CACP-33-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 03.02.2026

CHANDER SHEKHAR KHARE

....Appellant

Versus

RAMESH KUMAR SACHDEV AND ANOTHER

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

*****

Present: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate with

Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate

Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Advocate

Ms. Ashna Singh, Advocate

Ms. Sharvi Dadhwal, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Brahmjot Singh Nahar, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

Mr. Akshit Chander, Advocate

for respondent No.2.

*****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

1. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset seeks, liberty

of the Court to convert this Contempt Appeal into a Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Prayer made is allowed. The appellant is permitted to correct the

nomenclature of the plea as a Letters Patent Appeal.

3. This appeal is a classic example of how the contempt proceedings

are utilized to derive benefits which are far beyond the relief granted in a writ

petition. Facts, which persuade us to make this observation, are noticed

hereinafter.

4. It transpires that in the year 2008, the applicant-respondent was

1 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 03:15:20 :::

CACP-33-2025 (O&M) 2

allotted plot No.64 in Sector 26, Bhiwani by Haryana Urban Development

Authority, now redesignated as Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (in short

‘HSVP’). Twenty-five per cent of the allotment money was paid and possession

was delivered to the applicant-respondent. It transpires that the allotment to the

applicant-respondent as well as other persons was challenged before this Court

in Writ Petition No.2677 of 2008. Allegations were made in the writ petition that

allotments were made for extraneous considerations. Various instances were

cited to impeach the allotments. In respect of resondent – R.K. Sachdev also

following allegation of favouritism was made:-

“R.K. Sachdev respondent No.25 is close relative of Rajiv Arora

and smt. Jyoti Arora. Acording to the petitioners these husband and

wife duo is posted as Senior IAS Officer in the State of Haryana.”

5. The writ petition was ultimately allowed on 12.11.2009 and the allotments

made by HSVP, including one in favour of the applicant-respondent – R.K.

Sachdev, was quashed. Operative portion of the judgment of the Division Bench

of this Court dated 12.11.2009 is extracted hereinafter:-

“In these circumstances, we accept the present writ petitions, quash the

allotments made 171 pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee and

direct the respondent Haryana Urban Development Authority to evolve a

criteria, which is in accordance with the requirements of law and observations

made by us and to re-assess the comparative merit of the applicants. We

propose no costs."

6. The aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench has attained finality

with dismissal of SLP on 15.03.2010.

7. In terms of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition

No.2677-2008, the HSVP evolved fresh criteria for allotment of plots. As per the

criteria so evolved, the candidates were subjected to interview, whereafter fresh

2 of 16

::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 03:15:20 :::

CACP-33-2025 (O&M) 3

allotments were made on 13.06.2013. In this allotment Plot No.64, which was

earlier allotted to the applicant-respondent, was allotted to one Dharambir

Nehra. The applicant-respondent was not selected for allotment. The earlier

allotment made in favour of the applicant-respondent was also cancelled.

Challenging the cancellation of his allotment as well as allotment of Plot No.64

in favour of Dharambir Nehra, the applicant-respondent approached this Court

by filing Writ Petition No. 15780 of 2013 titled as ‘R.K. Sachdev vs. State of

Haryana and others’. In the writ petition, the following interim order was passed

on 24.07.2013:-

“In the meanwhile, statues quo regarding impugned allotments of industrial

plots be maintained.”

8. The Writ Petition remained pending, and