109-A IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-495-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 05.02.2026 MALVINDER SINGH AND ORS. ...Petitioners Versus SH. BIKRAMJEET SINGH SHERGILL, IAS ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J. (Oral)

1. The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 26.02.2024 passed in CWP-24581- 2015, which was disposed of in terms of order dated 26.02.2024 passed in CWP No. 24567-2015, whereby directions were issued to the respondents to consider the demand notice of the petitioners within a period of one month.

2. Notice of motion.

3. On asking of the Court, Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and contends that demand notice submitted by the petitioners has already been decided. The copy of speaking order dated 21.02.2025 is already on record with the present contempt petition as Annexure P-2.

4. He further contends that the petitioners had previously filed COCP No. 3321-2024, which was dismissed as not pressed on 24.02.2025 and no liberty was granted to file revival or to file a fresh contempt petition.

He, therefore prays that the present petition be dismissed.

5. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that since the order dated 26.02.2024 passed in CWP-24581-2015 has not been complied with, the petitioners have every right to file a fresh contempt petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file of this case with their able assistance.

7. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to reproduce order dated

24.02.2025 passed in COCP No. 3321-2024:-

“Learned counsel for respondent submits that order dated 26.02.2024 passed in CWP-24581-2015 has now been complied with.

In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the present petition, however, with liberty to avail his appropriate remedies in accordance with law Dismissed as not pressed with aforesaid liberty.

Rule discharged.”

8. A perusal of the file shows that vide order dated 26.02.2024, the respondent was directed to consider the demand notice served by the petitioners and decide the same. In compliance of the same, speaking order dated 21.02.2025 is already passed.

9. A perusal of the above referred to order dated 24.02.2025 shows that the petitioners did not press the earlier contempt petition and no liberty was granted to them to revive the contempt petition. Rather the petitioners in the present case has filed another contempt petition for non-compliance of order dated 26.02.2024 passed in CWP-24581-2015, which is not even maintainable.

10. Despite the fact that speaking order dated 21.02.2025 (Annexure P-2) has already been passed as referred to above and the order has been complied with, the petitioners have filed the present contempt petition, which is not even maintainable. This amounts to gross abuse of the judicial process and contributes significantly to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court.

11. 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 burgeon