Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J
SARVESH KUMAR AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
SATENDER KUMAR GUPTA – Respondent
COCP No.5695 of 2025 (O & M)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohit
For the Respondents: Naveen Kumar
Compliance with a judicial direction to consider a representation is fully satisfied once the competent authority considers the representation and passes a reasoned or speaking order.
Headnote:The matter involves a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a court order that directed the competent authority to consider a representation dated 06.10.2024 and take appropriate steps in accordance with law. The court found that the respondent had already passed a speaking order on 09.01.2025 after considering the said representation. The primary issue was whether the passing of a reasoned order satisfies a court direction to consider a representation. The court held that where a court directs the competent authority to consider a representation and pass an appropriate order, the compliance of such direction stands satisfied once the representation is duly considered and a reasoned order is passed by the competent authority. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be recovered from the petitioners.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the contempt petition regarding the direction to consider a representation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondent's claim of compliance through the issuance of a speaking order. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. legal standard that passing a reasoned order satisfies a direction to consider a representation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. filing a contempt petition after compliance constitutes a misuse of the process of the court. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. dismissal of the contempt petition with imposition of costs for misuse of process. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)
1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by a predecessor Bench of this Court in CRWP-10872-2024, titled “Sarvesh Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others” (Annexure P-1).
2. Vide the aforesaid order dated 13.11.2024, the writ petition was disposed of with the following direction to respondent No.3- Commissioner of Police, Faridabad :-
“…to look into the representation dated 06.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) submitted by the petitioners and take appropriate steps, if required, at the earliest, in accordance with law.”
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the aforesaid directions issued by the Writ Court have already been complied with. It is submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 13.11.2024, the competent authority has duly considered the representation dated 06.10.2024 submitted by the petitioners and a speaking order has already been passed on 09.01.2025.
4. It is further submitted that once the representation of the petitioners has been duly considered and a reasoned order has been passed by the competent authority, the directions issued by this Court stand fully complied with.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. A perusal of the order dated 13.11.2024 passed in CRWP-10872-2024 shows that this Court had merely directed respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 06.10.2024 submitted by the petitioners and to take appropriate steps, if required, in accordance with law.
7. It is well settled that where a Court directs the competent authority to consider a representation and pass an appropriate order, the compliance of such direction stands satisfied once the representation is duly considered and a reasoned order is passed by the competent authority.
8. In the present case, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the State that the competent authority has already passed a speaking order dated 09.01.2025 while considering the representation submitted by the petitioners. Thus, the direction issued by the Writ Court already stands complied with.
9. It is also pertinent to note that despite the aforesaid compliance having been made on 09.01.2025, the present contempt petition has been filed much later on 17.11.2025 alleging non-compliance of the order dated 13.11.2024.
10. Once the directions issued by this Court had already been complied with by the respondents, there was no justification for the petitioners to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. The filing of the present contempt petition, despite compliance of the writ order, amounts to a misuse of the process of the Court.
11. In view of the above, no case for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents is made out.
12. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be recovered from the petitioners.
13. The aforesaid costs shall be recovered from the petitioners through the concerned District Judge, Faridabad, in accordance with law.
14. The learned District Judge, Faridabad shall ensure recovery of the aforesaid amount from the petitioners and shall forward a compliance report to the Registry of this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
15. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the l
