IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 103 Lt. Partap Singh and others Sh. Vineet Garg, I.F.S., Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Van Bhawan, Sector CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) violation of the order dated 20.3.2024 ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP and others vs. State of Haryana and others”, whereby the Civil Writ Petition was disposed of in terms of order passed in main CWP 2020 titled as “Ashish Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana and others”, decided on 13.3.2024. an LPA was preferred against the said judgment dated 13.3.2024, which was further disposed of in terms of LPA No.1007 of 2025 filed against the order dated 13.3.2024; which was further disposed of in terms of LPA No.105 of COCP-1385-2025 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1385 of 2025 Date of decision : Lt. Partap Singh and others Versus Sh. Vineet Garg, I.F.S., Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Van Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana and another CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Jai Shree Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, AAG, Haryana NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is violation of the order dated 20.3.2024 (Annexure P ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-33428 of 2018 nd others vs. State of Haryana and others”, whereby the Civil Writ Petition was disposed of in terms of order passed in main CWP 2020 titled as “Ashish Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana and others”, decided on 13.3.2024. Learned counsel for the respondent an LPA was preferred against the said judgment dated 13.3.2024, which was further disposed of in terms of LPA No.1007 of 2025 filed against the order dated 13.3.2024; which was further disposed of in terms of LPA No.105 of 2025 titled as “State of Haryana and others 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1385 of 2025 (O & M) Date of decision :-13.08.2025 …..Petitioners Sh. Vineet Garg, I.F.S., Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, 6, Panchkula, Haryana and another …..Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA s. Jai Shree Kaushik, Advocate Priyavrat Parashar, AAG, Haryana. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is (Annexure P-1) passed by a co- 33428 of 2018 titled as “Partap nd others vs. State of Haryana and others”, whereby the Civil Writ Petition was disposed of in terms of order passed in main CWP-2158- 2020 titled as “Ashish Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana and respondent-State points out that an LPA was preferred against the said judgment dated 13.3.2024, which was further disposed of in terms of LPA No.1007 of 2025 filed against the order dated 13.3.2024; which was further disposed of in 2025 titled as “State of Haryana and others VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.19 19.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document vs. Damyanti” vide order dated 14.5.2025. It is pointed out that perusal of the order dated that it has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court that SLPs have been preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court including SLP No.112/2025 whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court had stayed the operation and effec submitted that the order dated 20.3.2024 (Annexure P stayed in the same terms as the abovesaid judgments. above said facts. passed in the present petition, the same is Contempt Petition subject to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.112/2025. August 13 Vijay Asija Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No COCP-1385-2025 (O & M) vs. Damyanti” vide order dated 14.5.2025. It is pointed out that perusal of the order dated 14.5.2025 passed in LPA that it has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court that SLPs have been preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court including SLP No.112/2025 whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court had stayed the operation and effect of the judgment. submitted that the order dated 20.3.2024 (Annexure P stayed in the same terms as the abovesaid judgments. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the above said facts. In view of the same, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition, the same is The petitioners would be at liberty to revive the present Contempt Petition subject to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme SLP No.112/2025. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. 3, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No 2 vs. Damyanti” vide order dated 14.5.2025. It is pointed out that a 14.5.2025 passed in LPA-105-2025 shows that it has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court that SLPs have been preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court including SLP No.112/2025 whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court had t of the judgment. It is accordingly submitted that the order dated 20.3.2024 (Annexure P-1) stands stayed in the same terms as the abovesaid judgments. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition, the same is disposed of accordingly. The petitioners would be at liberty to revive the present Contempt Petition subject to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.08.19 19.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document