Dismissed¶41

Pawan Kumar v. Arun Kumar Gupta, Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Aug 2025COCP/1374/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition dismissed with exemplary costs Rs. 50,000; orders dated 06.07.2015 and 31.07.2015 (CWP-13144-2015) held duly complied with; representations decided via Speaking Orders 16.09.2016 (Annexure P8), 14.02.2017 (Annexure R1), 18.08.2023 (Annexure R3); CWP-16081-2017 dismissed 31.08.2020; SLP(C) No.5283 of 2021 disposed 19.07.2021 and undisclosed by petitioner; Section 24(2) and Section 101-A RFCTLARR Act 2013; HSVP/HUDA/Zonal Administrator Gurugram; misuse of process; frivolous and vexatious proceedings; K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi (SC); Nidhi Gupta, J.; Punjab & Haryana High Court; COCP-1374-2023.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- imposed, and pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶41

Pawan Kumar Vs Arun Kumar Gupta, Additional Chief… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- imposed, and pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents committed wilful and deliberate disobedience of the orders dated 06.07.2015 (Annexure P1) and 31.07.2015 (Annexure P2) passed in CWP-13144-2015, in particular by passing the order dated 16.09.2016 while ignoring the petitioner's representations dated 02.06.2016 and 19.08.2016, so as to justify the respondents being summoned, tried and punished for contempt.

¶21

Court's answer

The orders dated 06.07.2015 (Annexure P1) and 31.07.2015 (Annexure P2) have been duly complied with by the respondents many times over; no contempt is made out.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner has grossly misused the due process of law by filing the present contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of the orders dated 06.07.2015 and 31.07.2015.

¶39

Key takeaways

The valuable time and resources at the disposal of this Court have been wasted; the present is one such case of frivolous and vexatious proceedings meriting exemplary costs, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi.ratio¶41
The present contempt petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram within two weeks, failing which the CJM shall take action for recovery in accordance with law; a copy of the order is to be sent through the learned District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition (COCP-1374-2023 O&M) by Pawan Kumar alleging wilful disobedience of the High Court's orders dated 06.07.2015 and 31.07.2015 in CWP-13144-2015, which had directed the respondents to decide his representation concerning lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) RFCTLARR Act, 2013, with interim status quo. The Court found both orders duly complied with "many times over": the representations dated 02.06.2016 and 19.08.2016 were decided by Speaking Order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P8) and afresh by order dated 14.02.2017 (Annexure R1); the ensuing writ petition (CWP-16081-2017) was dismissed on 31.08.2020 with liberty under Section 101-A, upon which a further representation was rejected on 18.08.2023 (Annexure R3); and the Division Bench order had already been carried to the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.5283 of 2021 (disposed 19.07.2021) — facts undisclosed by the petitioner. Relying on K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi (SC) on sanctioning frivolous and vexatious proceedings, the Court dismissed the petition with exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- payable before the CJM, Gurugram, failing which recovery action follows.

¶1

Page 1 of 7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

209

¶4

COCP-1374-2023(O&M) Date of decision: 20.08.2025

Pawan Kumar

...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Arun Kumar Gupta & Another

¶9

...Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present:Mr. Kanishtha Ganeriwala, Advocate For the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Priyavrat Prashar, AAG Haryana. Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J.

¶13

Present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging violation of: a) order dated 06.07.2015 (Annexure P1) passed by this Court in CWP-131442015 titled as “Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Others”, whereby the Writ Petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all pleas to be submitted to the respondents within two months from the date of order; with further direction to the respondents to decide the same within a period of 4 months; and b) order dated 31.07.2015 (Annexure P2) passed by this Court in CWP-

¶14

SUNENA 2025.08.22 16:48

¶15

Page 2 of 7

¶16

13144-2015 titled as “Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Others”, whereby it was clarified that till the matter is decided by the concerned authorities, status quo shall be maintained by the parties; and in case no representation was filed by the petitioner, the interim order shall cease to operate.

¶17

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite

¶18

the aforesaid clearcut directions of this Court, and in wilful, deliberate disobedience of the aforesaid directions of this Court, the representations dated 02.06.2016 (Annexure P5) and 19.08.2016 (Annexure P6) submitted by the petitioner remained unanswered till date; and inaction in the same is a clear violation of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court; and is therefore a case of continuing contempt. It is contended that the sole reason for the deliberate inaction of the respondents on the said representations was to hush up the matter since the time period of 4 months granted by this Court vide order dated 06.07.2015 (Annexure P1) had elapsed. (In this regard, also Reference pleadings/averments made in para 15 of the present contempt petition.) It is accordingly submitted that present Contempt Petition be allowed and the respondents be summoned, tried and punished for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 06.07.2015 (Annexure P1) and order dated 31.07.2015 (Annexure P2) passed by this Court in CWP No.13144 by undermining the majesty of this Court in passing an order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P8) by ignoring the

¶19

SUNENA 2025.08.22 16:48

¶20

Page 3 of 7

¶21

representations (Annexure P5 and P6) which is in utter disregard and disobedience of the orders (Annexure P1 & P2) of its true letter and spirit.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes submissions of the petitioner and points out that the petitioner had submitted representations dated 02.06.2016 (Annexure P5) and 19.08.2016 (Annexure P6), which were decided by the respondents vide Speaking Order dated 16.09.2016 which has been appended by the petitioner himself as Annexure P8, with the present contempt petition. Therefore, no contempt is made out against the respondents. Ld. Counsel further takes this Court through the record of the case in detail to demonstrate that petitioner is misusing the process of law.

¶23

No other argument is made on behalf of the parties.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail.

¶25

A perusal of the order dated 06.07.2015 (Annexure P1), shows that the petitioner was required to submit a representation within two months. The pleadings of the contempt petition reveal that the petitioner had first submitted a representation dated 18.07.2015 (Annexure P3), however, the said representation was made to the wrong authority viz Administrator, HSVP, Gurgaon; whereas as per Government Notification, the said matters are examined by the Zonal Committee and therefore, representation was not made to the correct authority. Record further reveals that the Zonal Administrator-cum-Additional Director, Urban Estates,

¶26

SUNENA 2025.08.22 16:48

¶27

Page 4 of 7

¶28

Haryana, Gurugram gave personal hearing to the petitioner on 31.08.2015, 28.09.2015 and 29.12.2015 and after hearing the petitioner, submitted the recommendations of the Committee to reject the request of the petitioner to claim lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, to the Director General, Urban Estates, Haryana, Panchkula vide Memo No.7050 dated 30.04.2016. The said recommendations were considered by the Government and vide Memo No.A-I-2016/7567-71 dated 19.07.2016, the recommendations were approved and Zonal Administrator-cum-Additional Director, Urban Estates, Haryana, Gurugram was requested to pass the detailed Speaking Order.

¶29

In the meantime, the petitioner had submitted representations dated 02.06.2016 (Annexure P5) and 19.08.2016 (Annexure P6), which were decided by the respondents vide Speaking Order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P8). However, it was the contention of the petitioner that the said order had been passed by the wrong authority viz Chairperson-cum-Zonal Administrator, HUDA, Urban Estate, Gurgaon. Accordingly, a fresh order dated 14.02.2017 (Annexure R1) was passed by the Additional Director, Office of: Director, Urban Estates Department, Haryana, Panchkula, again rejecting the aforesaid representations of the petitioner.

¶30

The said orders dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P8) and 14.02.2017 (Annexure R1) were challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.16081-2017 titled as “Pawan Kumar Vs. State of

¶31

SUNENA 2025.08.22 16:48

¶32

Page 5 of 7

¶33

Haryana & Others”, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.08.2020 (Annexure R2); thereby also vacating the status quo order. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner that if he makes a representation invoking Section 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,

¶34

it will be for the respondent-authorities to examine it and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 09.09.2020 to the respondents, which was also rejected by the respondents vide Speaking Order dated 18.08.2023 (Annexure R3).

¶35

The order dated 31.08.2020 (Annexure R2) passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.16081-2017 was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of SLP(C) No.5283 of 2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.07.2021. However, these complete facts have not been disclosed by the petitioner in the present Contempt Petition.

¶36

From the above facts, it is clear that the orders dated 06.07.2015 (Annexure P1) and 31.07.2015 (Annexure P2) have been duly complied with by the respondents many times over. No doubt, Public functionaries are available for the service of the citizen. However, public time cannot be misused at the whims and fancies of errant and indiscriminating persons like the petitioner who are aware of their rights, but not their duties. Perusal of

¶37

SUNENA 2025.08.22 16:48

¶38

Page 6 of 7

¶39

the above facts further shows that the petitioner has also grossly misused the due process of law by filing the present petition, alleging that the orders dated 6.7.2015 and 31.7.2015, have been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents by passing “ order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P8) by ignoring the representations dated 02.06.2016 (Annexure P5) and 19.08.2016 (Annexure P6), which is in utter disregard and disobedience of the orders dated 06.07.2015 and 31.07.2015 (Annexure P1 and P2) .”

¶40

In the face of the above said facts, I refer to a fairly recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi” (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2649954 : SLP Criminal No.4360 of 2022 decided on 30.09.2024, wherein, in similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court was constrained to observe that “ These misadventures directly impinge on the rule of law, because they add to the pendency and consequential delay in the disposal of other cases which are crying for justice. It is time that such frivolous and vexatious proceedings are met with due sanctions in the form of exemplary costs to dissuade parties from resorting to such tactics. ”

¶41

I find the present to be one such case where the valuable time and the resources at the disposal of this Court have been wasted. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed however, with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, within two weeks from today; failing which it

¶42

SUNENA 2025.08.22 16:48

¶43

Page 7 of 7

¶44

is directed that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, shall take action against the petitioner for recovery of the said amount, in accordance with law, under intimation to this Court. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram through the learned District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram, for compliance.

¶45

Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

¶46

20.08.2025		(Nidhi Gupta)
Sunena		Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned:	Yes/No
Whether reportable:	Yes/No

¶47

SUNENA 2025.08.22 16:48

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Orders alleged to have been violated: (a) order dated 06.07.2015 (Annexure P1) in CWP-13144-2015 'Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Others' disposing of the writ petition with liberty to file a comprehensive representation within two months and direction to respondents to decide it within four months; and (b) clarificatory order dated 31.07.2015 (Annexure P2) maintaining status quo till decision.¶13
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh · 06.07.2015
Prior proceeding
By order dated 31.07.2015 (Annexure P2) in CWP-13144-2015, this Court clarified that status quo shall be maintained till the matter is decided, and the interim order would cease if no representation was filed.¶16
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's first representation dated 18.07.2015 (Annexure P3) was made to the wrong authority (Administrator, HSVP, Gurgaon); as per Government Notification such matters are examined by the Zonal Committee.¶25
Prior proceeding
Zonal Administrator-cum-Additional Director, Urban Estates, Haryana, Gurugram gave personal hearings on 31.08.2015, 28.09.2015 and 29.12.2015 and recommended rejection of the petitioner's claim of lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, conveyed to Director General, Urban Estates vide Memo No.7050 dated 30.04.2016.¶27
Prior proceeding
Government approved the rejection recommendations vide Memo No.A-I-2016/7567-71 dated 19.07.2016 and requested the Zonal Administrator-cum-Additional Director to pass the detailed Speaking Order.¶28
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's representations dated 02.06.2016 (Annexure P5) and 19.08.2016 (Annexure P6) were decided by the respondents vide Speaking Order dated 16.09.2016, appended by the petitioner himself as Annexure P8.¶22
Prior proceeding
On the petitioner's contention that the 16.09.2016 order was passed by the wrong authority (Chairperson-cum-Zonal Administrator, HUDA), a fresh order dated 14.02.2017 (Annexure R1) was passed by the Additional Director, Urban Estates Department, Haryana, Panchkula, again rejecting the representations.¶29
Prior proceeding
Orders dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P8) and 14.02.2017 (Annexure R1) were challenged in Civil Writ Petition No.16081-2017, dismissed by a Division Bench vide order dated 31.08.2020 (Annexure R2), vacating the status quo order, with liberty to invoke Section 101-A RFCTLARR Act, 2013.¶33
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's representation dated 09.09.2020 was rejected by the respondents vide Speaking Order dated 18.08.2023 (Annexure R3).¶34
Prior proceeding
The Division Bench order dated 31.08.2020 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.5283 of 2021, disposed of vide order dated 19.07.2021; these facts were not disclosed by the petitioner in the present Contempt Petition.¶35

Pawan Kumar v. Arun Kumar Gupta, Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar v. Arun Kumar Gupta, Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kirpal Singh Randhawa Vs C. Roul and Ors.

Smt. Amarjit Kaur Vs Shri Karan Avtar Singh

Jaswant Singh Vs Arvind Vice Chancellor,Panjabi University Patiala and Ors.

Manphool Singh and Others Vs Ajit Bala Joshi

Karnail Singh and Ors. Vs Alok Sinha, Ias, and Ors.

Ravinder Chhabra and Ors. Vs Manjit Singh and Ors.