Sewak Singh Mann Vs Dr. Harjinder Singh Bedi. A.D.C. Barnala

The present contempt peti t ion has been filed alleging violation o f order dated 22.09.2025 ( A nnexure P-1) passed by the Division B ench of this Court in CWP-1710-2025, titled as ‘Sewak Singh

¶13

Mann vs. S tate of Punjab and others’ wher e by it was directed as follows:-

¶14

“xxx xxx xxx 3. Accordingly, at this st a ge, without commenting on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to take a decision on the application dated 31.12.202 4 (Annexure P-3) submitted by the petitioner, by passing a speaking order and after affording opportunity of he a ring to all affected parties, preferably within two months f rom the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶15

4. Needless to add that the decision so taken be communicated to the petition e r and if the decision is not to the satisfaction of the petiti o ner, he would be at liberty to challenge the same, in accord a nce with law.”

¶16

Learned counsel for the resp o ndent-State has filed in Court complianc e report dated 19.03.2026 by w a y of affidavit of Dr. Harjinder

¶17

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.20 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶18

COCP-693-2026 (O&M) -2-

¶19

Singh Bed i , Additional Deputy Commissi o ner, Barnala, District Barnala, to submit that in compliance of the ord e r dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passe d by the Division Bench of this Court, Speaking Order dated 16.03.202 6 (Annexure R-1/T) has be e n passed after affording an opportunit y of personal hearing to all the a ffected parties. The compliance report is t a ken on record. Separate copie s thereof have been supplied to learned co u nsel opposite. 3. Learned counsel for the app l icant/proposed respondents (in CM Nos. 5 380-81-CII-2026) submits that the applicants were not granted an opport u nity of hearing as was directe d by the Division Bench of this Court vid e order dated 12.03.2026 passe d in CWP-7525-2026, titled as ‘Joginder S ingh and others vs. State of P u njab and others’. Copy of the order date d 12.03.2026 handed over in C o urt by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record; and copies t hereof have also been supplied to learned c ounsel opposite.

¶20

Leaned counsel for the res p ondent-State controverted the aforesaid s ubmission of learned couns e l for the applicants and has referred to the averments made in para N o. 5 of the compliance report dated 19.0 3 .2026 to submit that the appli c ant/proposed respondents who are respon d ents No.8 to 12 in the main w r it petition bearing CWP-17102025 were also afforded an opportunity o f hearing. Relevant portion of para No. 5 of the compliance report reads a s follows:-

¶21

“5. ….. In this regard, vid e this office letter No. 1182-87 dated 13.03.2026, Responde n ts No. 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were called upon to appear and pr e sent their case on 16.03.2026. On 16.03.2026, Sh. Sukhdarshan Singh son of Kesar Singh, Sh. Joinder Singh son of She r Singh, and Sh. Dilbagh Singh husband of Karamjit Kaur appeared before this office. However, they refused to ma r k their presence by signing the

¶22

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.20 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶23

COCP-693-2026 (O&M) -3-

¶24

attendance and also decli n ed to have their statements recorded. The said fact h a s been duly verified by the witnesses, namely, Ms. Rish a vWalia (Panchayat Secretary), Sh. Jagraj Singh (BDPO), M s. Jyoti Rani (Stenographer), and Sh. Anurag Kuma r (Superintendent). Further videography of the proceed i ngs conducted at the time o f affording opportunity to the s aid persons has been taken on record and is annexed herewi t h as Annexure A-1 …..”

¶25

Learned counsel for the ap p licant/proposed respondents is unable to d ispute the averments made in para No. 5 of the compliance report as r e produced above.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petit i oner submits that as the order dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Division Bench of this Court stan d s duly complied with, nothing survives in the present petition and the sa m e may be disposed of, accordi n gly.

¶27

Heard.

¶28

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

¶29

of, accordi n gly.

¶30

The petitioner would be at li b erty to challenge the aforesaid Speaking O rder dated 16.03.2026 (Annex u re R-1/T), in accordance with law, if so a dvised.

¶31

Rule stands discharged.

¶32

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

¶33

19.03.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

¶34

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶35

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.20 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Sewak Singh Mann v. Dr. Harjinder Singh Bedi. A.D.C. Barnala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sewak Singh Mann v. Dr. Harjinder Singh Bedi. A.D.C. Barnala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuljit Kaur and Others Vs Jagjit Singh and Anr.

Vakila and Anr. Vs Usman and Ors.

Shaista and Anr. Vs Usman

Samunder Vs Naveen

Bimla Vs Goldie

Pseb & Ors. Vs Kuldeep Singh & Ors.