IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 20.02.2026 Mam Raj since deceased through his LR ..Petitioner Versus J.S.Ganeshan ..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate, and Ms. Mehak Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Dheerja, Advocate, for the respondent.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J .

1. The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 22.08.2024 passed by this Court in CWP-22341-2018, whereby the following direction was issued:-

“12. In view of the aforesaid position, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reimburse the remaining amount of medical bills of Rs.3,96,351/- (Rs.8,34,118/- - Rs.4,37,767/- = Rs.3,96,351/-) that the petitioner spent on follow up treatment as an outdoor patient, to the wife of the petitioner alongwith interest @ 6% per annum (simple). The wife of the petitioner shall also be entitled for interest @ 6% (simple) on the amount i.e. Rs.4,37,767/-which has already been paid to her on 21.08.2024. The aforesaid amount shall be paid to the wife of the petitioner within a period of three months from today.”

2. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that compliance order was already passed on 18.11.2024, which is attached along with the present contempt petition as Annexure P-2. She further contends that short reply by way of affidavit dated 26.05.2025 of J.Ganesan, Chief Administrator, Housing Board, Panchkula, has already been filed by the respondent.

3. A perusal of file reveals that the directions issued by this Court have already been duly complied with before filing of the present contempt petition. No material has been produced by the petitioner to 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 a 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 respondent, rather, he is doing his 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 respondent 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 misp