Navdeep Singh Virk and Others Vs Ravinder Kumar… — Contempt of Court | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Navdeep Singh Virk and Others Vs Ravinder Kumar… — Contempt of Court | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; order passed by the learned Single Bench dated 11.03.2025 set aside; liberty reserved to the learned Single Bench to proceed in the matter in accordance with law; all pending misc. application(s) disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the direction issued by the learned Single Bench requiring the appellants to deposit Rs. 50,000/- from their own pocket was in excess of jurisdiction and outside the ambit and scope of contempt jurisdiction.

Court's answer

A learned Single Bench exercising contempt jurisdiction is required to examine whether there was any intentional or willful disobedience of the orders passed by the writ Court; if so found, charges must be framed before the Single Bench proceeds further in the matter in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

The direction requiring the appellants to deposit Rs. 50,000/- from their own pocket is clearly in excess of jurisdiction and cannot be sustained, because the appellants were neither held guilty nor were charges framed against them; the Single Bench's order therefore falls outside the ambit and scope of contempt jurisdiction.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt appeal (CACP-21-2025 O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against a learned Single Bench order dated 11.03.2025 directing recovery of Rs. 50,000/- from the salary of the officers concerned. The order being shown as referable to jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution rather than contempt jurisdiction, the appeal was converted into a letters patent appeal. The Division Bench (Ashwani Kumar Mishra J., oral, with Kuldeep Tiwari J.) held that a Single Bench exercising contempt jurisdiction must first examine whether there was intentional or willful disobedience of the writ Court's orders and, if so found, frame charges before proceeding; since the appellants were neither held guilty nor charges framed against them, the direction to deposit Rs. 50,000/- from their own pocket was clearly in excess of jurisdiction and could not be sustained. Appeal allowed; order dated 11.03.2025 set aside; liberty reserved to the Single Bench to proceed in accordance with law; pending misc. applications disposed of. Decided 30.07.2025.

108 I N THE HIGH COURT OF PU N JAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIG A RH

CACP - 21-2025 (O&M) Date o f Decision: 30.07.2025 Navdeep Sin g h Virk and others …Appellants

Vs.

Ravinder Ku m ar and others …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present: M r. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG, Ha r yana with M r. P.P. Chahar, Sr. DAG, Hary a na, M r. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Hary a na M r. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Hary a na and M r. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryan a for the appellants. ***

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA J. (Oral)

T he learned Single Bench vid e order dated 11.03.2025, ha s issued direct i ons to recover a sum of Rs. 5 0,000/- from the salary of th e officers conc e rned.

T he appeal has been filed unde r Section 19 of the Contempt o f Courts Act, 1971, challenging the aforesai d order passed by the learne d Single Bench.

L earned counsel for the appella n ts submits that since the orde r passed by th e learned Single Bench is not r e ferable to exercise of contemp t jurisdiction a n d the learned Single Bench ap p arently has invoked jurisdictio n

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.08.01 11:45 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CACP-21-2025 (O&M)

[2]

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the appellants be permitted to convert this appeal into the ‘ letters patent appeal’ .

Prayer in that regard is allowed. Learned counsel for the appellants undertakes to furnish amended appeal within three days from today, in the Registry.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Yesh Paul Malik, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the

respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents although opposes the prayer made in the appeal but has not been able to show that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is referable in exercise of contempt jurisdiction. Prayer however, is made to decide the present appeal finally.

Learned Single Bench in exercise of such jurisdiction is required to examine as to whether there is any intentional or willful disobedience of the orders passed by the writ Court. If it is so found, the concerned Court will have to frame charges and it is always open for the learned Single Bench to thereafter proceed in the matter, in accordance with law.

However, the directions which have been issued by the learned Single Bench requiring the appellants to deposit Rs.50,000/- from their own pocket are clearly in excess of jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Neither the appellants are held guilty nor charges are framed against them. The order passed by the learned Single Bench, therefore, cannot be said to be within the ambit and scope of contempt jurisdiction and consequently the same cannot be sustained. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and order passed by the learned Single Bench dated 11.03.2025, stands set aside. Liberty stands

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.08.01 11:45 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CACP-21-2025 (O&M)

[3]

reserved to the learned Single Bench to proceed in the matter, in accordance

with law.

All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE

(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE

30.07.2025 rajesh

Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.08.01 11:45 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.