Safiya Malik

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sudeepthi Sharma dismissed a contempt petition filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, stating that the allegations raised were purely civil in nature and did not fall within the purview of contempt jurisdiction. The Court held that no prima facie case of wilful disobedience or violation of a Supreme Court judgment was established by the petitioner.

In light of repeated disregard for judicial directions and apparent misuse of the legal process, the Court not only dismissed the petition but also imposed exemplary costs amounting to ₹50,000 on the petitioner. The Court directed that the amount be deposited with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association within two months, earmarked specifically for the renovation or construction of the Women Bar Room at the High Court premises. In default of such payment, the amount is to be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the competent authority.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Case Over Consensual Relationship | Says Promise Of Marriage Doesn’t Make It Rape

The petitioner, through her counsel, filed the present contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 10, 12, and 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petition alleged wilful disobedience of a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 538 of 2023 titled ‘Rajeeb Kalita Vs. Union of India and others,’ decided on 15.01.2025.

The petitioner claimed that respondents, specifically addressees no. 6 to 11, were in direct violation of the Supreme Court’s mandate concerning uninterrupted water supply to residential communities. The grievance arose from the disconnection of the water supply to the petitioner’s flat and several others within the Savitry Greens 2 project located in Zirakpur, Punjab, which was allegedly carried out without any lawful authority or court directive.

The petitioner alleged that she is the owner of Flat No. 19C, Tower 10, Savitry Greens 2. According to the notice annexed with the petition, the builder and associated parties had consistently failed to maintain basic civic and safety standards since the project’s inception, which began around 2013-2014. The notice listed multiple deficiencies in services and infrastructure, including non-functional fire safety systems, lack of CCTV surveillance, inadequate electricity infrastructure, non-functional sewage treatment plants, and non-refund of illegally collected charges.

The petitioner further contended that she and other residents had lawfully withheld monthly maintenance charges under protest due to these prolonged deficiencies. In retaliation, the builder allegedly disconnected water supply on July 18, 2025, which the petitioner asserted was done solely to coerce residents into payment, thereby violating their fundamental rights.

Among the grievances documented were:

• Non-allocation of flat-wise parking causing disputes.
• Absence of Automatic Rescue Devices (ARD) in lifts.
• Lack of trained lift operators.
• Inadequate CCTV and boom barriers at entry/exit points.
• Lack of boundary walls or fencing.
• Non-operational fire hydrants.
• Exposed PSPCL meter panels and insufficient transformers.
• Absence of power backup for G+3 flats.
• Non-availability of promised recreational and religious facilities.
• Non-refund of PSPCL meter installation charges.
• Non-functional STPs.

The petitioner also stated a significant fire incident that occurred on September 17, 2024, allegedly due to the builder’s failure to install and maintain adequate fire safety infrastructure. She reported extensive loss of property and asserted that functional fire systems could have prevented the damage.

She further stated that complaints had been made to law enforcement, including the SSP Mohali and SHO Zirakpur, but no action was taken beyond telephonic directions to the builder, who refused to comply.

In support of her case, the petitioner referred to judicial precedents, particularly the judgment in ‘Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India’, and orders by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which held that essential services like water and electricity cannot be disconnected as a means to recover maintenance dues.

The petitioner argued that such actions amounted to criminal intimidation under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and public mischief under Section 326(a) BNS. She urged the Court to take judicial notice of the builder’s conduct and issue appropriate directions.

Despite having been directed earlier by the Court to avail of proper civil remedies, the petitioner chose to pursue the contempt petition without placing on record any material to establish wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court judgment.

The Court began its analysis by stating "upon careful examination of the contents of the petition and the legal notice referred therein, it is apparent that the grievance raised by the petitioner stems from a private civil dispute between him and private respondents No. 6 to 11." It further noted that "the petitioner has not placed any cogent material on record to establish even a prima facie case of wilful disobedience or violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court."

Justice Sharma held that "the subject matter of the present contempt petition is entirely civil in nature and falls outside the purview of contempt jurisdiction, consequently, the present contempt petition would not be maintainable."

It was also recorded that "the petitioner, despite being specifically directed by this Court to avail appropriate civil remedies in accordance with law, has persisted in pressing this contempt petition without any tenable basis."

On the question of judicial propriety and misuse of the legal process, the Court recorded that "it is evident that the petitioner has engaged in what can only be described as a frivolous and vexatious litigation spree, seemingly driven by a misplaced sense of grievance." The Court further stated that "such conduct constitutes a gross abuse of the judicial process and contributes significantly to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this Court."

Justice Sharma cited the Supreme Court decision in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114, observing: "In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals." The Supreme Court had further held: "a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."

The Court also referenced the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470, noting: "The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims."

Stating the broader consequences of such conduct, the Court observed: "in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part."

To reinforce the need for deterrence, the judgment also referred to K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 27458/2022, where the Supreme Court imposed costs on the petitioner for repeatedly agitating the same issue. Justice Sharma quoted: "No legal system can permit a situation wherein a party repeatedly agitates the same issue after it has been conclusively adjudicated by the highest judicial forum. Such conduct amounts to a gross misuse of the judicial process and results in a significant waste of valuable judicial time."

The Court concluded its judgment with a strong deterrent directive. It stated: "In the light of the foregoing, and with the objective of sending a strong deterrent message, this Court finds it appropriate to impose exemplary costs upon the petitioner."

Accordingly, the judgment recorded: "the contempt petition is dismissed with costs of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)."

Also Read: Customs Wrongly Treated 998 Purity Gold Jewellery As Prohibited Goods | Delhi High Court Recognises It As Personal Effects Under Baggage Rules | Grants Relief To Returning Traveller

Further, the Court directed: "The said amount shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of this judgment with the treasure of Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, which shall be utilized for construction/renovation of Women Bar Room, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh."

Justice Sharma clarified the consequence of non-compliance with the cost directive: "In the event of default in compliance, the amount shall be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue by the competent authority."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagmohan Singh Bhatti, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab

Case Title: Payal Chaudhary v. KAP Sinha IAS and others

Neutral Citation: 2025: PHC:095351

Case Number: COCP-3579-2025 (O&M)

Bench: Justice Sudeepthi Sharma