Disposed¶34

Gurdev Bir Singh and Others v. Shri Vikas Punia, Sub Divisional Soil Conservation Officer and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Sept 2025COCP/1224/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt of court; alleged deliberate disobedience of order dated 29.05.2024 in CWP-16465-2019; direction to re-lay above-ground irrigation pipelines (Mogha/outlet No.14505/R, Muradwala Minor) by 30.06.2024 at cost upto Rs.30,000/- on respondents No.8-12; compliance affidavit dated 02.05.2025 of Sub Divisional Soil Conservation Officer; 812 of 1160 metres repaired, remaining 348 metres kept shallow citing parallel Mogha No.14510/R channel and project feasibility; compliance undisputed; contempt purged and rule discharged; liberty to pursue other remedies.

What did the court decide?

Contempt purged and rule discharged; petitioner granted liberty to avail any other available remedy in accordance with law. ¶34

Gurdev Bir Singh and Others Vs Shri Vikas Punia, Sub Divisional Soil Conservation Officer and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt purged and rule discharged; petitioner granted liberty to avail any other available remedy in accordance with law.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents deliberately and intentionally disobeyed the order dated 29.05.2024 passed in CWP-16465-2019, which required remedial re-laying of the pipelines laid above ground, to be completed by 30.06.2024.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

A perusal of the affidavit dated 02.05.2025 shows that the order dated 29.05.2024 passed in CWP-16465-2019 has been complied with, and this fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶33

Key takeaways

The contempt is purged and the rule is discharged.ratio¶34
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail any other remedy available to him in accordance with law.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition (COCP-1224-2025 O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana, decided orally by Sudeepti Sharma, J. on 15.09.2025, alleging deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 29.05.2024 passed in CWP-16465-2019, whereby the writ petition had been disposed of with a direction to the authorities to initiate necessary remedial action after 04.06.2024 for pipelines laid above ground contrary to norms and complete the same by 30.06.2024, cost thereof upto Rs.30,000/- borne by respondents No.8 to 12 and any excess by the respondent-State. In compliance, respondent No.1 (Vikas Poonia/Punia, Sub Divisional Soil Conservation Officer) filed affidavit dated 02.05.2025 reporting that 812 of the total 1160 metres of the Mogha (outlet) No.14505/R Muradwala Minor pipeline had been repaired as directed, while the first 348 metres (including 106 metres at about 1-foot depth) could not be deepened because further trenching would damage the parallel Mogha No.14510/R channel and render the project unfeasible. The Court held that perusal of the affidavit showed compliance with the order dated 29.05.2024, a fact not disputed by petitioner's counsel; accordingly the contempt was purged and rule discharged, with liberty to the petitioner to avail any other remedy in accordance with law.

¶1

COCP-1224-2025 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

215

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

COCP-1224-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.09.2025

¶6

GURDEV BIR SINGH AND OTHERS

¶7

..Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

SHRI VIKAS PUNIA, SUB DIVISIONAL SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICER AND ANOTHER

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶12

Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Ravneet S. Joshi, DAG, Punjab.

¶14

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)

¶15

The contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 29.05.2024 passed in CWP-164652019.

¶16

The relevant para of order dated 29.05.2024 are reproduced as

¶17

under:-

¶18

“4. The officers present in Court have submitted that necessary remedial action for laying down the pipelines, which have been laid above the ground contrary to the norms, would be initiated after 04.06.2024 and would be completed by 30.06.2024.

¶19

5. In view of the submissions made above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities concerned to initiate the necessary remedial action after 04.06.2024 and complete the same by 30.06.2024. The cost for the same would be borne by respondents No.8 to

¶20

MOHD AYUB 2025.09.16 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶21

COCP-1224-2025 (O&M)

¶22

-2-

¶23

12 upto Rs.30,000/-. However, it is made clear that if the cost goes beyond Rs.30,000/-, the same would be borne by the respondent-State. The parties would be at liberty to avail their remedy in case any further cause of action accrues.”

¶24

Learned State counsel contends that in compliance of order dated 29.05.2024, affidavit of Mr. Vikas Poonia/respondent No.1 dated 02.05.2025 has already been filed.

¶25

The relevant paras of affidavit dated 02.05.2025 are reproduced

¶26

as under:-

¶27

“That the matter relates to a pipeline project from Mogha (outlet) No.14505/R Muradwala Minor village Buraj Hanumangarh. The brief background is that prior to sanctioning of Mogha (outlet) No.14505/R Muradwala Minor, the petitioners and private respondents used to irrigate their field through Mogha (outlet) No. 14510 & No.19020/R Muradwala Minor. The newly sanctioned, i.e., Mogha (outlet) No.14505/R and the older Mogha (outlet) No.14510/R are very close to each other due to which the water channels for both the outlets from the source are very close to each other and run parallel to each other specially the first 350 meters (approx.). The total length of the pipeline is 1160 meters out of which 812 meters has been repaired by the respondent department as directed by this Hon'ble Court. However, the remaining 348 meters could not be repaired due to the following reasons:

¶28

a) The first 106 meters of pipeline from source (Mogha No.14505/R) has been laid at the depth of around 1 feet from the ground due to the reasons that further trenching beyond this level would have damaged/dismantled the water channel of outlet

¶29

MOHD AYUB 2025.09.16 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶30

COCP-1224-2025 (O&M)

¶31

-3-

¶32

Mogha No.14510/R running parallel and close (around 1 feet away) to the current pipeline. b) The current level/depth of first 348 meters of pipeline from the source (including the 106 meters as mentioned above) is as per the feasibility of the project keeping in view the slope and level of the fields to be irrigated by this project. If the pipeline is laid at greater depth beyond this level, the level at source would become deeper than that of the fields to be irrigated which in turn will make the project unfeasible. Thus, the respondent department has already rectified errors in the remaining 812 meters of the pipeline in compliance of the orders of this Hon'ble Court, also keeping in view the feasibility of the project. Any further amendments in the project would lead to loss of both- the petitioners and the private respondents and also the State exchequer if the project being developed at public cost becomes infeasible”

¶33

A perusal of affidavit dated 02.05.2025, shows that order dated 29.05.2024 passed in CWP-16465-2019, has been complied with. This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶34

In view of the above, the contempt is purged and rule is discharged.

¶35

Needless to say that liberty is however granted to the petitioner to avail any other remedy as is available to him in accordance with law.

¶36

September 15^th , 2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub JUDGE

¶37

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶38

MOHD AYUB 2025.09.16 11:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Gurdev Bir Singh and Others v. Shri Vikas Punia, Sub Divisional Soil Conservation Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdev Bir Singh and Others v. Shri Vikas Punia, Sub Divisional Soil Conservation Officer and Another

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

Similar cases

Preeti Rani and Others Vs Mohan Lal and Others

Balbir Kaur and Ors. Vs Rakesh Kumar and Ors.

Sunita and Others Vs Ravinder Kumar and Another

Sat Narain Vs Naresh Goyal and Another

Karamvir Sirohi Vs Amit Kumar Agrawal, IAS and Another

Sarjeewan Rani Vs State of Punjab and Others