IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.04.2026 M/S V K CONSTRUCTIONS ......Petitioner Vs.

V UMASHANKAR AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rishi Kaushal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3.

Mr. Rohit Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.2.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (Oral)

1. Mr. Rohit Khanna, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr. Rishi Kaushal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3 and filed their respective Vakalatnamas.

The same are taken on the record.

2. The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 16.02.2023 passed by this Court in CWP-3161-2023, whereby, a direction was issued to respondent No.3 – The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India to take note of the legal notices served by the petitioner and to pass a speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 has filed compliance affidavit of Mr. Jag Bhushan, Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Sonepat dated 03.04.2026 along with copy of paper-book of COCP-1884-2023 in CWP No.3161-2023 (attached as Annexure R-3/1); copies of reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, Annexure R-1 (Reply to legal notice) and Power of Attorney in civil original contempt petition No.1884-2023 in CWP-3161- 2023 (attached as Annexure R-3/2); and copy of order dated 21.05.2025, passed by this Court in COCP-1884-2023 (attached as Annexure R-3/3).

The same is taken on the record.

4. A perusal of the same reveals that petitioner has filed second contempt petition for non-compliance of order dated 16.02.2023, whereas the previous contempt petition was decided on 12.05.2025 on the basis of compliance affidavit filed by the respondents.

5. Since previous contempt petition filed by the same petitioner was decided on 12.05.2025, present contempt petition is not maintainable. Despite the fact that previous contempt petition was decided, petitioner preferred to file the present contempt petition. Such conduct amounts to gross abuse of the process of law and unnecessarily adds to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court.

6. 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 respondents, rather, they are doing their duties effectively and efficiently.

7. 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.

8. 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