Partap through Lr and Others Vs Vineet Garg IFS and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Partap through Lr and Others Vs Vineet Garg IFS and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to revive it subject to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.112/2025; Rule stands discharged; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether further orders are required in the contempt petition alleging violation of the order dated 20.3.2024 (Annexure P-1), given that the underlying judgments stand stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.112/2025.

Court's answer

In view of the stay by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.112/2025 (which the petitioners' counsel did not dispute), no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt petition; the petition is disposed of accordingly.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners are at liberty to revive the present Contempt Petition subject to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.112/2025.

Key takeaways

Rule stands discharged.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition (COCP-1385-2025 (O & M)) — Alleged violation of the order dated 20.3.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by a coordinate Bench of the High Court in CWP-33428 of 2018 (Partap and others vs. State of Haryana and others), whereby the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order in main CWP-21582020 (Ashish Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on 13.3.2024. Counsel for the respondent-State pointed out that an LPA (No.1007 of 2025) was preferred against the judgment dated 13.3.2024, which was disposed of in terms of LPA No.105 of 2025 (State of Haryana and others vs. Damyanti, order dated 14.5.2025), and that SLPs — including SLP No.112/2025 — are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which has stayed the operation and effect of the judgment; it was submitted that the order dated 20.3.2024 stands stayed in the same terms. Petitioners' counsel did not dispute these facts. Held: no further orders required; petition disposed of, with liberty to revive subject to the Supreme Court's decision in SLP No.112/2025; Rule discharged; pending applications disposed of.

COCP-1385-2025 (O & M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

103

COCP No.1385 of 2025 (O & M) Date of decision :-13.08.2025

Lt. Partap Singh and others

…..Petitioners

Versus

Sh. Vineet Garg, I.F.S., Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Van Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana and another

…..Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:Ms. Jai Shree Kaushik, Adv o cate for the petitioners.

Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, AA G , Haryana.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

Learned counsel for the pet i tioners submits that there is violation of the order dated 20.3.2024 (A n nexure P-1) passed by a coordinate B ench of this Court in CWP-33 4 28 of 2018 titled as “Partap and othe r s vs. State of Haryana and oth e rs”, whereby the Civil Writ Petition w as disposed of in terms of orde r passed in main CWP-21582020 titl e d as “Ashish Sharma and oth e rs vs. State of Haryana and others”, d ecided on 13.3.2024.

Learned counsel for the res p ondent-State points out that an LPA was preferred against the sai d judgment dated 13.3.2024, which w a s further disposed of in terms o f LPA No.1007 of 2025 filed against t h e order dated 13.3.2024; whic h was further disposed of in terms of L PA No.105 of 2025 titled as “ State of Haryana and others

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.19 19.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

COCP-1385-2025 (O & M) 2

vs. Dam y anti” vide order dated 14.5.2025. It is pointed out that a perusal o f the order dated 14.5.2025 passed in LPA-105-2025 shows that it h a s been observed by the Divisi o n Bench of this Court that SLPs h a ve been preferred before th e Hon’ble Supreme Court including SLP No.112/2025 whereby t h e Hon’ble Apex Court had stayed the operation and effect of the j udgment. It is accordingly submitte d that the order dated 20.3.2 0 24 (Annexure P-1) stands stayed in the same terms as the abovesai d judgments.

Learned counsel for the pet i tioners does not dispute the above said facts.

In view of the same, no fur t her orders are required to be passed in the present petition, the same is disposed of accordingly.

The petitioners would be at liberty to revive the present Contemp t Petition subject to the decisi o n of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S LP No.112/2025.

Rule stands discharged.

Pending application(s), if an y , shall stands disposed of.

August 1 3 , 2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No

VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.19 19.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document