COCP-2416-2025 212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Rajesh Sharma Sh. Tejveer Singh, IAS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Ms. Malika Ms. Shiny Chopra, AAG Punjab. Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. 1. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1971 Act’) willful disobedience of order dated CWP-20270-2024 2. Reply by way of short affidavit of Sh. Gautam Jain, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, filed in the Court today, is taken on record. A copy thereof has been furnished to the learned counsel for the pet 3. Speaking order dated 07.07.2025 compliance with directions issued on 22.08.2024 in CWP produced, which is taken on record. learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner to challenge the 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- COCP Date of Decision : VERSUS Sh. Tejveer Singh, IAS and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Ms. Malika Sethi Sobti, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shiny Chopra, AAG Punjab. Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. -.- VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (Oral) The Instant petition has been preferred under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1971 Act’) willful disobedience of order dated 22.08.2024 2024. Reply by way of short affidavit of Sh. Gautam Jain, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, filed in the Court today, is taken on record. A copy thereof has been furnished to the learned counsel for the pet Speaking order dated 07.07.2025 compliance with directions issued on 22.08.2024 in CWP produced, which is taken on record. A copy thereof has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner to challenge the said speaking order dated 07.07.2025 as none of the grounds -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-2416-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 08.07.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents VIKRAM AGGARWAL Sobti, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. preferred under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1971 Act’) alleging passed by a co-ordinate Bench in Reply by way of short affidavit of Sh. Gautam Jain, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, filed in the Court today, is taken on record. A copy thereof has been furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Speaking order dated 07.07.2025, stated to have been passed in compliance with directions issued on 22.08.2024 in CWP-20270-2024, has been A copy thereof has been furnished to the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends speaking order dated 07.07.2025 as none of the grounds preferred under Section 12 of the alleging ordinate Bench in Reply by way of short affidavit of Sh. Gautam Jain, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, filed in the Court today, is taken on record. A stated to have been passed in , has been A copy thereof has been furnished to the intends speaking order dated 07.07.2025 as none of the grounds TRIPTI SAINI 2025.07.10 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-2416-2025 raised in the representati consideration. 5. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt petition. 6. The contempt petition is 7. Rule is discharged. July 8, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2025 raised in the representation nor settled law on the In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule is discharged. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -2- on nor settled law on the subject has been taken into In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt accordingly disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE has been taken into In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt TRIPTI SAINI 2025.07.10 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document