##PAGE1##

COCP-10-2026 (O&M) -1-

218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

COCP-10-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 07.04.2026

Gurpanth Singh and others ..Petitioners

Versus

Dr. Satbir Singh Gosal and others ..Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Udai Agnihotri, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. Ravneet S. Joshi, DAG, Punjab.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J .

1. The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 21.07.2025 passed by this Court in CWP-20512-2025, whereby without commenting on the merits of the case, the civil writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to

decide the legal notice dated 28.04.2025 filed by the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that in compliance of order dated 21.07.2025 passed by this Court in CWP-20512-2025, order dated 12.12.2025 has already been passed by the Director of Research, Punjab Agricultural University, which is attached along with the present

contempt petition as Annexure P-3.

2. He further submits that in compliance of order dated 21.07.2025

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI

2026.04.08 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

COCP-10-2026 (O&M) -2-

passed by this Court in CWP-20512-2025, affidavit dated 13.03.2026 of Dr. Satbir Singh Gosal, Vice Chancellor, Punjab Agricultural University, P.A.U. Campus, Ludhiana, has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1; affidavit dated 13.03.2026 of Dr. Ajmer Singh Dhatt, Director of Research, Punjab Agricultural University, P.A.U. Campus, Ludhiana, has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2, and affidavit dated 13.03.2026 of Dr. Shammi Kapoor, Comptroller, Punjab Agricultural University, P.A.U. Campus, Ludhiana, along with Annexures R-3/1 to R-3/5, has been filed on behalf of respondent

No.3 before the Registry. The same are taken on record.

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. Despite the fact that speaking order, which is attached with the present contempt petition as Annexure P-3, has already been passed, petitioners preferred the present contempt petition. No material has been produced by the petitioners to establish any willful, deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondents. Despite having due knowledge of the legal position, the petitioners 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.

3. 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

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI

2026.04.08 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

COCP-10-2026 (O&M) -3-

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 the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court. The tendency of litigants to misuse the judicial forum by engaging in forum shopping, filing repetitive and meritless petitions, and adopting dilatory tactics undermines the very foundation of our legal system and

clogs the administration of justic