##PAGE1##

1 COCP-1462-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.112 COCP-1462-2026

Date of Decision: 06.04.2026

NISHAN SINGH

....Petitioner

Versus

GURPREET SINGH KHERA, MD PUNBUS .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

Present:- Mr. Gursimran S. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Jagriti Kalia, AAG, Punjab for the respondent.

*****

ARCHANA PURI, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has filed the present petition, for initiation of

contempt proceedings, against the respondent, for wilful defiance of the order dated 23.02.2021, passed in CWP-4249-2021, copy whereof is

Annexure P-3.

It is submitted by the counsel that even though, a time-bound

direction was given to decide the representation, vide the aforesaid order, but however, despite the representation having filed, no requisite order has been

passed on the said representation.

HIMANSHU VATS 2026.04.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

2 COCP-1462-2026

On query by this Court, counsel for the petitioner was unable to

state, as to which representation was filed, within a period of one week, since the receipt of certified copy of the order dated 23.02.2021. Even, he was unable to state as to whether any representation was so filed, within the requisite period or not. However, while making reference to the legal notice dated 28.07.2025, copy whereof is Annexure P-4, submits that the same, as such, has not been decided. However, the aforesaid legal notice has been issued, after more than four years, from the date of passing of the requisite

order dated 23.02.2021.

On query by this Court, learned State Counsel, who is making

appearance on behalf of the respondent, has brought to the notice of this Court that this is the second contempt petition, filed at the behest of the petitioner. In fact, the earlier contempt petition i.e. COCP-4231-2025, was filed and the same was withdrawn, vide order dated 22.08.2025 and it was only thereafter that the aforesaid legal notice was issued. Further, a representation was also filed on 10.12.2025, copy whereof is Annexure P-6.

The same was filed, after withdrawal of the earlier contempt petition.

In the light of the same, while making reference to paragraph

No.8 of the petition, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on 22.08.2025, learned State Counsel had made an oral submission before this Court that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered and decided, within a reasonable time and on this account, the earlier contempt petition was withdrawn. Thereafter, the detailed representation dated

10.12.2025 was filed.

HIMANSHU VATS 2026.04.07 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

3 COCP-1462-2026

However, the submission aforesaid, made by the counsel for the

petitioner, is palpably wrong. Firstly, it is pertinent to mention that the order dated 22.08.2025 was passed in COCP-4231-2025, by this Court itself, wherein it was simply stated that “At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to pursue with the present petition and the same be dismissed as withdrawn”. However, therein, there is no mention made about the State Counsel having made any oral statement, thereby giving an undertaking before the Court, to consider and decide the representation, within a reasonable time. If any such statement is made, even if made orally by any counsel for the parties to the lis, the same is recorded by this Court in every case. However, such a statement does not appear to have been made in COCP-4231-2025. Even, learned State Counsel submits that no such statement was made by her and it is falsely so

alleged.

In view of the aforesaid, the withdrawal was made without any

observation being made, as no such statement was made by the State Counsel. Thus, the submission now made, by the counsel for the petitioner is palpably wrong. As such, it was on its own wisdom that the representation was filed again on 10.12.2025. Besides the same, as