← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCOCP/438/2022disposed of

Vikas v. Deputy Commissioner And ANR

2022-03-10Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal2 pages

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh C.O.C.P. No. 438 of 2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.03.2022 Vikas ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra and Another ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. Vikas, Petitioner, in person.

Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1.

The petitioner appears in person. He complains that the order dated 30.11.2021, passed in Vikas v. Gram Panchayat, Bhawani Khera (Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.198 of 2021), has not been complied with. The order reads as under:- "Considering the fact that the previous writ petition being CWP-(PIL)-164-2021 was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner on the statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana that the representation of the petitioner would be considered and decided and the fact that the petitioner has filed complaints/representations dated 12.07.2021 (Annexure P-15) and 21.09.2021 (Annexure P-16) which are pending before the respondent-authorities, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana submits that the DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2022.03.14 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.O.C.P. No. 438 of 2022 (O&M) decision thereon would be communicated to the petitioner expeditiously.

In the circumstances, taking the statement of learned State counsel on record, the writ petition stands disposed of". 2.

Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, has entered appearance, pursuant to the supply of advance copy of the contempt petition. He submits, on the instructions from Mr. Partap Singh, District Development and Panchayat Officer, Kurukshetra, that the petitioner, despite various notices, has neither come forward to join the inquiry proceedings nor co-operating.

3.

The petitioner submits that the same officer, against whom the allegations have been made, has been directed to hold an inquiry. 4.

In the considered opinion of this Court, such matter cannot be examined in a contempt petition. Hence, the petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to avail an alternative remedy. (Anil Kshetarpal) Judge March 10, 2022 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2022.03.14 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document