Dismissed¶15

Pankaj Chauhan and Ors. v. Vinay Kumar, Irps

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2025COCP/102/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

COCP-102-2025; contempt petition; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Harkesh Manuja, J.; Pankaj Chauhan and others v. Vinay Kumar, IRPS; HSSC; compliance with Writ Court Order; communication dated 08.02.2025; four-week compliance undertaking; dismissed as not pressed; rule discharged; revival of contempt petition; Rs.50,000 costs from own pocket; litigation expenses; decision date 17.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

None presently; conditional liberty to the petitioners to seek revival of the contempt petition if the needful is not done within four weeks, with the erring/concerned Officer liable to pay Rs.50,000/- as costs from his/her own pocket towards litigation expenses upon revival. ¶15

Pankaj Chauhan and Ors. Vs Vinay Kumar, Irps — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the contempt petition seeking compliance with the Writ Court Order should be pursued, in view of the respondent's submission that the needful exercise would be carried out within four weeks.

¶14

Court's answer

In view of the respondent's counsel's statement that the needful exercise in terms of the Writ Court Order would be carried out within four weeks, learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the petition; it was dismissed as not pressed and rule discharged.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

If the needful is not done within the aforementioned four-week period as per the undertaking, the petitioners would be at liberty to seek revival of the contempt petition, and in that eventuality the erring/concerned Officer would be liable to pay an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- as costs from his/her own pocket towards the petitioners' litigation expenses, immediately on the first date of listing of the revival application.

¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition (COCP-102-2025), Pankaj Chauhan & Ors. v. Vinay Kumar, IRPS, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 17.02.2025 by Harkesh Manuja, J. (oral). Learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions from Mr. Vijay Alahwat, Superintendent (Confidential) HSSC, submitted that in terms of a communication dated 08.02.2025 the needful exercise in relation to the petitioners in terms of the Writ Court Order would be carried out within four weeks. Counsel for the petitioners did not press the petition. Held: petition dismissed as not pressed and rule discharged; however, if the needful is not done within the said period, the petitioners may seek revival of the contempt petition, and in that eventuality the erring/concerned Officer would be liable to pay an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- as costs from his/her own pocket towards the petitioners' litigation expenses, immediately on the first date of listing of the revival application.

¶1

173

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

COCP-102-2025

¶4

Date of Decision: February 17, 2025

¶5

PANKAJ CHAUHAN AND ORS ........Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

VINAY KUMAR, IRPS

¶8

........Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶10

Present: M r. R.S. Dhull, Advocate for th e petitioners.

¶11

M r. Manish Dadwal, AAG, Har y ana. ****

¶12

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

L e arned counsel for respond e nt on instructions from Mr. Vijay Alahwa t , Superintendent (Confide n tial) HSSC submits that i n terms of com m unication dated 08.02.2025 received by office of learne d counsel for p e titioner, the needful exercis e in relation to the petitioner s in terms of Writ Court Order shall be carri e d out within a period of fou r weeks from t o day.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid, learn e d counsel for the petitioner s does not pres s the present petition.

¶15

Di s missed as not pressed. R u le discharged. H o wever, in case the need f ul is not done within th e aforemention e d period, as per the underta k ing, the petitioners would b e at liberty to s e ek revival of the contempt p e tition and in that eventuality, the erring/co n cerned Officer would be lia b le to pay additional sum o f Rs.50,000/- a s costs from his/her own poc k et in favour of the petitioner s towards litiga t ion expenses, immediately, i .e. on the first date of listin g of revival application.

¶16

17.02.2025

¶17

Tejwinder

¶18

Whether speaking/reasone ( d	HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶19

TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.02.19 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pankaj Chauhan and Ors. v. Vinay Kumar, Irps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Chauhan and Ors. v. Vinay Kumar, Irps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prem Vs Pankaj Agarwal IAS

Rishipal Vs Chiman Lal

Vedanshi Gupta Vs Kuldeep Sangwan, Registrar (Birth & Deaths) M.C., Sector 4 Panchkula

Sanjeev Singh Vs Dr Dharam Pal and Anr.

Lachhman Alias Bichhu and Anr. Vs Mahabir and Ors.

M/S Jay Vee Agro Industries and Others Vs Anand Mohan Sharan IAS and Others