Shakuntla Devi v. Vivek Kumar Modi And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-1625-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.05.2026 Shakuntala Devi ......Petitioner Vs.

Vivek Kumar Modi and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:

Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents.

**** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (Oral) 1.

The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 09.02.2024 passed by this Court in CWP-4660-2022, whereby the following order was passed:- "14.

Keeping in view the above facts and settled principles of law, the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled for interest @ 9% per annum. The interest shall be granted to the petitioner, from the date the amount became due till the same was actually released to the petitioner. Petitioner shall also be entitled to the costs as she, being a class IV retired employee, had to file three cases for claiming her legitimate dues. The same is assessed at Rs.25,000/-, to be paid by respondent No.3 within a period of 06 weeks from today.

15.

Let the calculation of interest under this order be done by the respondents within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the interest so calculated by the respondents shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter."

-22.

In compliance of the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by this Court in CWP-4660-2022, reply by way of affidavit dated 11.05.2026 of Harprit Singh, Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Tapa, District Barnala, along with Annexure R-1, has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 in the Registry. The same is taken on record. The relevant paragraphs of the said reply is reproduced as under:- "2.

That the present contempt petition is wholly misconceived, factually incorrect as the order dated 09.02.2024 in CWP 4660 of 2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court already stands complied with in letter and spirit much prior to the filing of the present petition. There has been no disobedience on the part of the answering respondent.

3.

That a perusal of Office Order No.744 dated 12.06.2024 passed in compliance with above mentioned CWP, clearly establishes that the cost of Rs.25,000/- imposed by this Hon'ble Court was released vide Cheque No.013381 dated 26.03.2024. Further, interest amount calculated in terms of the order dated 09.02.2024 at the rate of 9% amounting to Rs.1,49,248/- was also released vide Cheque No.088359 dated 18.04.2024. The order is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1.

4.

That the said cheques have been duly encashed into the bank account of the petitioner in the year 2024 itself. 5.

That in view of the aforesaid documents, the very foundation of the present contempt petition alleging noncompliance of the order dated 09.02.2024 is factually incorrect, misconceived and contrary to the official record."

3.

A perusal of the above paragraphs shows that order dated 09.02.2024 passed by this Court in CWP-4660-2022 has already been complied with in the year 2024 itself.

4.

Despite the fact that order dated 09.02.2024 passed by this Court in CWP-4660-2022 has already been complied with and having due knowledge of the legal position, the petitioner chose to file present contempt

-3proceedings and continued to pursue the same without any justifiable or tenable grounds of law. Such conduct amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law and unnecessarily adds to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court.

5.

Similar matter has already been dealt with by this Court in COCP-3579-2025 decided on 24.07.2025 titled as "Payal Chaudhary V/s KAP Sinha IAS and others", while placing reliance on the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Dalip Singh V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114, Subrata Roy Sahara V/s Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470 and K.C. Tharakan V/s State Bank of India & Ors. Passed in Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).27458/2022". 6.

In view of the above referred to judgments, this Court is firmly of the opinion that the instant petition constitutes a glaring instance of misuse of the judicial process. It is, therefore, incumbent upon this Court to safeguard the sanctity of judicial proceedings and to prevent their exploitation by unscrupulous litigants. The time and resources of this Court are limited and must be reserved for bona fide grievances that merit judicial consideration.

7.

The aforesaid judgments clearly emphasize that frivolous and vexatious litigation must be curbed with a firm hand. The repeated filing of meritless petitions not only results in wastage of precious judicial time but also causes unnecessary harassment to public officials who are constrained to defend themselves despite having acted in accordance with law.

-48.

This Court was going to impose cost of Rs.50,000/- upon the petitioner but learned counsel for the petitioner apprised this Court about the financial status of the petitioner, therefore, the same is not imposed. 9.

Consequently, the present contempt petition is dismissed. 10.

Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. 19.05.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Virender JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No