Deepak Sukhija Vs Mahabir Prasad, Ias, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Yamuna Nagar — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Deepak Sukhija Vs Mahabir Prasad, Ias, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Yamuna Nagar — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No further orders in the contempt petition; petition disposed of upon recordal of compliance (Speaking Order dated 30.01.2026 taken on record); Rule discharged; pending application(s), if any, disposed of; petitioner left at liberty to challenge the Speaking Order in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent violated the order dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Writ Court in CWP-30431-2025, as alleged in the contempt petition. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Compliance with the Writ Court order dated 14.10.2025 stands effected: the copy of the Speaking Order dated 30.01.2026 handed over in Court is taken on record and has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.

Key takeaways

In view of the compliance noted, no further orders are required in the contempt petition and the same stands disposed of accordingly.ratio¶18
The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the Speaking Order dated 30.01.2026 in accordance with law, if so advised, or pursue any cause of action that still survives.obiter¶19
Rule issued in the contempt petition stands discharged.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt petition COCP-282-2026 (Deepak Sukhija v. Mahabir Parsad), High Court of Punjab and Haryana, decided 17.03.2026 by Nidhi Gupta, J. (oral): the petition alleged violation of the Writ Court order dated 14.10.2025 in CWP-30431-2025, which had directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's legal notice dated 08.09.2025 and pass a speaking order after affording hearing within 03 months. Respondent's counsel produced a compliance Speaking Order (printed as dated 30.01.2025 in ¶13; dated 30.01.2026 in ¶16) passed after personal hearing; the copy handed over in Court was taken on record and supplied to petitioner's counsel. Held: compliance having been made, nothing survives; petition disposed of, Rule discharged, pending applications disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the Speaking Order in accordance with law. No statutes or precedents were cited; no quantum involved.

COCP-282-2026 -1-

IN THE H IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

218 CO C P-282-2026

Dat e of Decision: 17.03.2026

Deepak S u khija

.… Petitioner

Versus

Mahabir P a rsad .... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - Mr. Ankit Chauhan, Advocat e for the petitioner.

Mr. RS Budhwar, Advocate f o r the respondent.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present contempt peti t ion has been filed alleging violation o f order dated 14.10.2025 (An n exure P-1) passed by the Writ Court in C WP-30431-2025, titled as ‘Deepak Sukhija vs. The State of Haryana a n d others’ whereby the writ p e tition was disposed of with a direction t o the respondent to consider th e legal notice dated 08.09.2025 of the peti t ioner; and pass a speaking orde r , after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a perio d of 03 months from the date of receiving c ertified copy of the said order. 2. At the very outset, learne d counsel for the respondent submits t h at in compliance of the Writ Court order dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-1), a Speaking Order dated 3 0.01.2025 has been passed by the respon d ent after affording an opportu n ity of personal hearing to the petitioner. A s such, nothing survives in the present petition.

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.17 20:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

COCP-282-2026 -2-

Copy of Speaking Order da t ed 30.01.2026 handed over in Court is t a ken on record. A copy thereof, has also been supplied to learned co u nsel for the petitioner.

Heard.

In view of the facts noted above, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petitio n ; and the same stands disposed of, accordi n gly.

The petitioner would be at li b erty to challenge the aforesaid Speaking O rder, in accordance with law, if so advised or any cause of action still survives.

Rule stands discharged.

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

17.03.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.17 20:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.