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 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 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 a subsequent order came to be passed in the matter on 14.05.2015, which is reproduced hereinafter:-

“The challenge in the present writ