IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-876-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 25.02.2026 PARVEEN KUMAR ..Petitioner Versus VASHU SHARMA, GENERAL MANAGER ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Paveen Kumar (petitioner in person).

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)

1. The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 21.03.2024 passed in CWP-6836-

2024, whereby, the following order was passed:-

“1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to redress the grievances of the petitioner regarding not being allowed by the respondents to complete the apprenticeship as per National Apprenticeship Promotion Scheme, with all consequential benefits arising thereto.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to seek alternative remedy, in accordance with law.

3. In view of the above statement of learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with the aforesaid liberty.”

2. A perusal of the above shows that the writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to seek alternative remedy in accordance with law. Still the petitioner has filed the present contempt petition against respondent-General Manager (Apprentice Division), NSDC New Modi Bagh, New Delhi.

3. Knowingly, the petitioner has filed the present contempt petition against the respondent to whom no direction was issued by this Court. This amounts to gross abuse of the judicial process and contributes significantly to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court. Therefore, the present contempt petition is not even maintainable.

4. 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 unclean hands, are not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Relevant extracts of the same is reproduce as under:- “In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. Courts have evolved new principles to curb such abuse, and it is now well established that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.”

11. The petitioner’s conduct in institu