Aakash Vs Sh. D. Suresh, IAS and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Aakash Vs Sh. D. Suresh, IAS and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; no notice was issued under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the petitioners were told they may avail alternative remedies.

Issue for consideration

Whether the failure of the respondent-Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited to issue any advertisement inviting applications from oustees under the R&R policy constitutes willful violation of the Court's earlier directions warranting notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. +1 more

Court's answer

Notwithstanding dismissal of the contempt petitions, the petitioners may avail alternative remedies.

Ratio / Principle

Jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is required to be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances, particularly when there is willful violation of the directions issued by the Court.

Key takeaways

The jurisdiction to issue contempt is not the same as the jurisdiction of execution.ratio¶24
There was no direction by the Court to issue an advertisement within a specified period; the Court had only expressed a hope that the advertisement would be issued as expeditiously as possible.ratio¶24
In view of the foregoing, no ground was made out to issue notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Anil Kshetarpal J., oral), decision 17.02.2025: three civil original contempt petitions (COCP-429/433/436-2025) by petitioners deprived of land through compulsory acquisition, complaining that the respondent-Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited had issued no advertisement inviting applications from oustees under the State's R&R policy, despite the petitioners' earlier writ petitions having been disposed of and a subsequent clarification application answered with the Court expressing sanguineness that advertisements for allotment of residential/industrial/commercial plots would be issued expeditiously. Adopting its detailed order of 14.02.2025 on similar petitions, the court held that jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is invoked only in extraordinary circumstances of willful violation of the Court's directions, that contempt jurisdiction is not the same as execution jurisdiction, and that since no time-bound direction to advertise had been issued - the Court having merely expressed a hope - no notice under the 1971 Act was warranted; the contempt petitions were dismissed and the petitioners left free to avail alternative remedies.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

103+104+105

1. COCP-429-2025 Date of decision: 17.02.2025

AAKASH ..Petitioner

Versus

SH. D. SURESH, IAS AND ORS ..Respondents 2. COCP-433-2025 YOGINDER SINGH RANA ..Petitioner Versus SH. D. SURESH, IAS AND ORS ..Respondents 3. COCP-436-2025 RAVINDER SINGH RANA ..Petitioner

Versus

SH. D. SURESH, IAS AND ORS ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present: Mr. Kanwar Abhay Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

Similar petitions were disposed of on 14.02.2025, by a detailed

order, which is extracted as under:-

“ 1. These two contempt petitions are listed today for hearing. The petitioners claim that they stood deprived of their land on account of compulsory acquisition of land. The petitioners filed two separate writ petitions which were disposed of with the following observations:-

“Mr. Mittal states that no applications have been invited for allotment of plots under the R&R policy of the State. As and when applications are invited and the petitioner applies in response to the same, his case would be considered in accordance with law.

In view of the above, instant petition is disposed of.”

2. Subsequently, an application for clarification of the order was filed which was disposed of with the following observations:-

MOHD AYUB 2025.02.20 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

COCP-429-2025 COCP-433-2025 COCP-436-2025

-2-

“This Court is sanguine that the respondents, in terms of the statement made in court today shall issue an advertisement as expeditiously as possible for allotment of residential/industrial/commercial plots under the R&R Policy and shall deal with the claims of the applicant in accordance with law.”

3. The learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that the respondent-Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited has not issued any advertisement for inviting applications from oustees.

4. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the petitioners.

5. The jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1971 Act”) is required to be invoked only in the extraordinary circumstances particularly when there is willful violation of the directions issued by the Court. The jurisdiction to issue contempt is not the same as of the execution. It is evident that there was no direction by the Court to issue an advertisement within a specified period. The Court only expressed a hope that the advertisement would be issued as expeditiously as possible.

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to issue notice under the ‘1971 Act’. However, the petitioners may avail the alternative remedies.

6. With the observations made above, both the contempt petitions are dismissed. ”

Consequently, the civil original contempt petitions are

dismissed.

February 17^th, 2025 Ay		(ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

MOHD AYUB 2025.02.20 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.