COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

205 COCP-1774-2025- (O&M)

Date of decision: 12.12.2025

Sarb Alliance Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Gurpreet Kaur Sapra ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:-Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advocate with

Mr. R.Kartikeya, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl.A.G., Punjab and

Mr. Manmeet Singh Teji, A.A.G., Punjab.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present contempt petition has been filed alleging

violation of order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed in CWP-27996-

2023 titled as "Sarb Alliance Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and

others”.

2. In compliance of last order dated 13.11.2025, respondent is

present in person in Court today.

3. The relevant extract of the order dated 01.10.2025 passed by

this Court in the present Contempt Petition, is as under: -

“The present contempt petition has been filed alleging

violation of order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by a

co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-27996-2023 titled as

“Sarb Alliance Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

others” whereby the writ petition was “disposed of as not

pressed” for the following reasons:-

‘xxx xxx xxx

Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner confines his

prayer and draws the attention of this Court towards the

minutes of the meeting (Annexure R-3) held on

07.05.2024 for development-cum-completion, operation

and maintenance of the Circuit House, Amritsar under

Public Private Partnership (PPP) mode. He contends that

in the said meeting held through video conferencing, the

Committee has approved the proposed drawings on the

basis of the conditions put forth by the Senior Architect

(North) Office of Architecture Department, Punjab vide

letter dated 25.08.2023 and subject to certain additional

conditions. He contends that notwithstanding the

approval of the drawings, the respondents have issued

the stamped copy of the old unapproved drawings

submitted by him instead of handing over the drawings

furnished subsequently and already approved. He thus

prays that the corrected and the subsequent drawings

submitted by him and as approved in the meeting held

on 07.05.2024 be delivered to him, duly stamped by the

Competent Authority and in a time bound manner.

Learned State Counsel, on instructions from Mr.

Manwar, Senior Assistant, Hospitality Department,

Punjab submits that the requisite approved drawings as

per the decision taken in the meeting held on 07.05.2024

shall be supplied to the petitioner positively within a

period of ten days from today.

In view of the above statement made by learned

State Counsel on instructions from Mr. Manwar, Senior

Assistant, Hospitality Department, Punjab, learned

Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not press the

instant petition any further.

The respondent-State shall, however, remain

bound to ensure that delivery of the drawings as

approved in the meeting held on 07.05.2024, are

supplied to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.

Disposed of as not pressed.

All other misc, application(s), if any, also stand(s)

disposed of accordingly.’

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 3 -

It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner that despite the above undertaking given on behalf

of the respondent-State, the said approved drawings have still

not been supplied to the petitioner. It is clarified that initially

the petitioner had submitted the plans dated 02.1.2022 for

approval, in which certain corrections were made by the

respondents, pursuant to which revised plans dated 08.2.2022

were submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted that the said

plans were approved by the Chief Architect, Punjab vide

order/letter dated 26.4.2022 (Annexure P-9); and further

approved in the meeting held on 7.5.2024. The building of the

Circuit House, Amritsar has been constructed as per the said

approved drawings. The Chief Minister, and Ministers of the

State of Punjab now regularly stay there. However, even

though the project stands completed, the formal approval of

the plans dated 08.2.2022 submitted by the petitioner has not

yet been received.

Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that

the plans dated 08.2.2022 submitted by the petitioner could

not be approved by the Design Approval Committee as the

Chief Architect, Punjab vide letter dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure

R-2) had forwarded the original plans of 02.1.2022 for

approval, and not the plans dated 08.2.2022. However, it is

admitted that the said contention of learned counsel for the

respondent does not find mention in the Short reply dated

12.5.2025 filed by way of affidavit of Smt. Gauri Parasher Joshi,

Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of General

Administration.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the

respondent that the petitioner has constructed the building of

the Circuit House, Amritsar, which is at variance even with the

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 4 -

allegedly approved designs of 08.2.2022. However, again the

said contention is not borne out from the abovesaid Short reply

filed by the State.

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the

respondents that the Annual Concession Fee (ACF) has not

been paid by the petitioner.

This assertion of the respondents is strongly

controverted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, who

submits that the ACF amount of Rs.One crore and five lacs

already stands paid in August 2023, in respect of which

compliance certificate has still not been given by the

respondents.

It is also pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner that the variations allegedly incorporated in the

building constructed by the petitioner were not mentioned by

the respondents before the Writ Court while suffering the order

dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-1).

In this view of the situation, at the oral request of

learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the Chief Architect,

Punjab is made party to the present contempt petition.

Let notice of this contempt petition be issued to the Chief

Architect, Punjab.

Mr. Manmeet Singh Teji, AAG Punjab accepts notice of

this contempt petition on behalf of newly impleaded

respondent-the Chief Architect, Punjab.

The Registry is directed to carry out necessary

incorporation in the Memo of Parties at appropriate place.

Learned counsel for the respondents further prays for

some time to file better reply in the matter.

At his request, adjourned to 13.11.2025.”

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 5 -

4. Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in flagrant

violation of the undertaking given by the respondents before the Writ

Court, till date the said revised plans have not been supplied to the

petitioner. It is submitted that in fact, the case of the petitioner has been

admitted in the short reply dated 26/27.11.2025 by way of Affidavit of

Chief Architect, Punjab, wherein, in para 11 it has been mentioned as

follows: -

“11.That in response to the above said letter dated

11.03.2022, the present Petitioner submitted fresh design of

the Circuit House, Amritsar on 14.03.2022 annexed as

Annexure R-2/7, which was received by the Respondent Office

on 18.04.2022. The design sent by the present Petitioner on

dated 14.03.2022 were discussed and approved. The

approval of the same was sent by answering respondent to

the Petitioner, Sarb Alliance Hospitality Private Limited, vide

Memo No. CA2022/1145, dated 26.04.2022 is being annexed

as Annexure R-2/8.

12. That in response to Annexure P-6, the layout plan duly

approved by this office included a 6-metre clear driveway

around the building to facilitate fire tender movement and

provided adequate building setbacks from the boundary wall,

as shown in Annexure R-2/9. It is respectfully submitted that

the petitioner has been repeatedly mis-stating the facts by

submitting different and altered layout plans to various

authorities at different points of time through multiple email

IDs. However those designs have never been approved/vetted

by the Office of the Chief Architect, Punjab, as they do not

comply with the applicable building norms and standards.”

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 6 -

5. It is accordingly prayed that necessary action be taken against

the respondents under the Act.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes

submissions on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that in fact in the

meeting dated 7.5.2024, glaring discrepancies in the execution of the

project by the petitioner were discussed and recorded. In this regard,

Learned counsel refers to the short reply dated 12.05.2025 by way of

Affidavit of Gauri Parasher Joshi, Secretary to the Government of Punjab,

Department of General Administration; in specific to the Proceeding

Report of the meeting of Design Approval Committee dated 07.05.2024

(Annexure R-1/T) in regard to Development, Completion, Operation &

Maintenance of Circuit House, at Amritsar. It is submitted that from the

perusal of para 2(i) of the said Proceeding Report (Annexure R-1/T), it is

clearly mentioned that as per the Agreement in question, the petitioner

had been asked to construct 70 rooms however, the

Concessionaire/petitioner has constructed 89 rooms, which is beyond the

terms of the Agreement and without the consent of

respondents/Authority. Therefore, as the petitioner had failed to adhere

to the terms and conditions of the Concession Agreement, the Building

Plans were approved while imposing several conditions including that all

the additional construction in excess of the provisions of the Concession

Agreement shall vest in the Government for all intents and purposes.

Furthermore, petitioner had also not completed the project within the

stipulated time. Even ACF was paid after a delay of 132 days. Accordingly,

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 7 -

petitioner was asked to deposit the interest amount within 7 days.

Furthermore, petitioner was also asked to remove all discrepancies within

30 days and failure to comply would invite penalty of Rs.30,000/- i.e. 0.2%

of the Performance Security for each day’s delay.

7. It is further submitted that in any event, drawings approved

in the meeting held on 07.05.2024 were duly forwarded to the petitioner

firstly, on 14.5.2024; and then in compliance of the Writ Court order dated

20.9.2024, the approved drawings were again supplied to the petitioner

vide letter dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure R-1/4).

8. Ld. counsel also refers to the reply/ Affidavit dated

28.11.2025 of Ms.Gauri Parashar Joshi, Secretary to the Government of

Punjab, Department of General Administration; wherein it is mentioned as

under:-

“7. That it is apposite to mention here that the Petitioner is

misstating the facts before this Hon'ble Court. The true facts

of the case are that the Petitioner had vide its letter dated

14.03.2022, submitted the designs/drawings to the office of

Chief Architect Punjab. Pursuant to the said letter, the office

of Chief Architect, vide letter dated 26.04.2022 (Annexure P-

6) had granted approval to the design sent by the Petitioner,

subject to some conditions. Thereafter, the said approved

designs were sent by the office of Chief Architect Punjab vide

its letter dated 25.08.2023 to the Office of Director

Hospitality. The copy of the same is annexed as Annexure

R1/1 (COLLY). It is further humbly submitted that these same

designs were presented before the Design Approval

Committee in its meeting dated 07.05.2024 and approved by

the Committee subject to the conditions mentioned therein

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 8 -

such as payment of the penalty for depositing the ACF after

due date, the penalty for delay in constructions etc.

8. That it is humbly submitted that vide letter dated

14.05.2024 the Answering Department supplied the

Petitioner with the proceedings of the meeting dated

07.05.2024, stating that the designs so sent by the office of

Chief Architect on 25.08.2023 (Annexure R1/1) were

approved by the Design Approval Committee. The copy of the

same is annexed as Annexure R1/2. It is further humbly

submitted that the Petitioner had duly acknowledged the

receipt and had agreed with the conditions so levied in the

meeting dated 07.05.2024, vide its email/letter dated

13.06.2024. The copy of the email/letter of acknowledgement

is attached herewith as Annexure R1/3.

9. That it is further humbly submitted that in compliance of

the Order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court

in CWP No. 27996 of 2023, the Answering Department had

again sent the designs duly signed and stamped as approved

by the Design Approval Committee in its meeting dated

07.05.2024. The copy of the letter dated 04.10.2024 of the

same is annexed as Annexure R1/4. It is humbly submitted

that the Answering Department has already complied with

the Order dated 20.09.2024 passed by this Hon'ble High

Court.

10. That it is further humbly submitted that on 01.10.2025,

the Petitioner had made wrong submission that the Petitioner

had submitted the plan/designs dated 02.01.2022 for

approval, on which certain conditions were imposed, and in

pursuance to which the Petitioner had submitted revised

plan/designs dated 08.02.2022 and the said plans were

approved by Chief Architect vide letter dated 26.04.2022. In

fact, no such designs/drawings as alleged by the Petitioner

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 9 -

dated 02.01.2022 and 08.02.2022 were ever received by the

Answering Department. It is humbly submitted that the

Petitioner had submitted the designs vide its letter dated

14.03.2022, which were duly approved, with conditions, by

the office of Chief Architect vide letter dated 26.04.2022

(Annexure P-6) and were further approved by the Design

Approval Committee in its meeting held on 07.05.2024.

Annexure R1/2 and R1/4).”

9. It is submitted that in actual fact, the petitioner is attempting

to convert this Contempt Petition into a Civil Suit. Ld. State Counsel also

submits that any alleged loss of revenue being suffered by the petitioner

on account of non-grant of certain statutory permissions is not the

consequence of any post-writ inaction. It is pointed out that the State has

processed and conveyed approvals, subject to contractual conditions and

regulatory compliances. Ld. Counsel reiterates that the record also shows

that the petitioner:

a)has constructed 89 rooms as against 70 rooms permitted under

the Concession Agreement, leading the Committee to stipulate that

any construction in excess of the agreement shall vest in the

Government;

b)has not yet fulfilled all Conditions Precedent, including execution

of the Escrow account and submission of the Safety Plan and

Procedures, exposing it to contractual penalties; and

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 10 -

c)has defaulted in payment of ACF for subsequent years 2024-25

and 2025-26, despite having paid ACF for 2023-24 after issuance of

notice.

10. It is submitted that in this background, the petitioner is

misusing the present contempt petition which is being aggressively

pressed not to ensure compliance with a limited direction (which has

already been complied), but to arm-twist the State into:

a)recognising the petitioner’s preferred revised drawings dated

08.02.2022, irrespective of what the Committee actually

approved;

b)ignoring deviations and contractual breaches; and

c)effectively diluting conditions imposed by the Design Approval

Committee and other statutory authorities.

11. It is contended that the petitioner is, in substance, seeking

to reopen and rewrite the Concession Agreement and the Committee’s

decision, rather than invoking proper remedies. It is prayed that the

contempt jurisdiction of this Court under Article 215 and Sections 10–12

of the Contempt of Courts Act may not be converted into a forum for

adjudicating complex PPP disputes. It is accordingly prayed that the

present Contempt Petition be dismissed.

12. At this stage, it is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner that the drawings Annexure R-2/11 given to the petitioner by

the respondent did not bear proper stamp or dates et cetera; and

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 11 -

therefore, the respondents be held accountable under the Act. It is

contended that the proper plans are not being released to the petitioner

only because of the EGO of the respondent.

13. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have

heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in detail.

14. Needless to say, the issues being raised by the parties are

disputed questions of fact; and enquiry into the same cannot be

conducted by this Court in contempt jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the facts

that emerge from the record are as under: -

14.03.2022: Petitioner vide its letter dated 14.03.2022 submitted the

Designs/Drawings to office of Chief Architect Punjab.

26.04.2022: Office of Chief Architect had granted approval to the Design

sent by petitioner subject to some conditions.

25.08.2023: Approved Designs were sent by office of Chief Architect to

the office of Director Hospitality (Annexure R1/1 colly).

07.05.2024: Same Designs were presented before Design Approval

Committee/DAC and approved by the Committee subject to the

conditions mentioned therein. The Design Approval Committee held its

meeting on 07.05.2024 under the Chairmanship of Secretary, General

Administration Department. The minutes record that the Committee

approved the drawings vetted by the Senior Architect (North),

Department of Architecture, Punjab, vide letter No. C.A.(N)-2023/1474

dated 25.08.2023, subject to certain conditions regarding: (i) additional

rooms constructed beyond 70, (ii) delay in construction completion, (iii)

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 12 -

delay in payment of Annual Concession Fee (ACF), and (iv) non- fulfilment

of Conditions Precedent. These minutes are (Annexure R- 1/T.)

14.05.2024: On 14.05.2024, immediately after the meeting, the

Government of Punjab, Department of General Administration (Protocol

Branch), issued memo”No. GAD-POLORESE/39/2020-RVA POL-1-

Part(2)/E450998/624 (Annexure R1/2) to the petitioner conveying that

the drawings vetted and forwarded by the Senior Architect (North) under

letter dated 25.08.2023 stand approved by the Design Approval

Committee, and setting out the above conditions in detail. The memo

expressly directs the petitioner to comply with these conditions and to

deposit the stipulated penalty and interest. (Annexure R-2/11 Chief

Architect affidavit).

13.06.2024: Vide its own Email/letter dated 13.6.2024 (Annexure R1/3)

addressed to the Principal Secretary, General Administration, the

petitioner not only acknowledged the receipt of plans, but it

“acknowledged and expressed gratitude” for the approval of drawings,

referring specifically to the approval letter No. 625 dated 16.05.2024 and

confirming deposit of the demanded amount.

1.10.2024: Thereafter, on 01.10.2024, the Additional Chief Architect,

Punjab, vide memo No. C.A.-2024/4667(Annexure R-2/T - along with short

reply dated 12.05.2025), informed the Director, Hospitality Department,

that the drawings approved by the Senior Architect (North) vide letter

dated 25.08.2023 were being forwarded after verification “for further

necessary action”.

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 13 -

04.10.2024: In compliance with the Writ Court order dated 20.9.2024

(Annexure P1) in CWP-27996-2023, the Director, Hospitality Department,

Punjab, vide letter/ memo No. 5795 dated 4.10.2024 (Annexure R1/4),

issued to the petitioner again forwarded the approved drawings of the

project dated 25.08.2023 as approved by DAC in its Meeting on

07.05.2024 (Annexures R-3/T and R-4/T along with short reply dated

12.05.2025), both by email and by hard copy. The short reply affidavit

dated 12.05.2025 clearly states that the drawings, duly stamped and

approved, were sent to the petitioner on 04.10.2024. These were duly

received by Sh Angadeep Singh, one of the partners of petitioner firm on

the same date, i.e. 04.10.2024.

10.03.2025: Present COCP-1774-2025 is filed by the petitioner against.

02.08.2025: Rejoinder to the short reply of respondent is filed by the

petitioner by way of CM-15385-2025 stating that:

a) respondent projected wrong and incomplete facts. Only a part of order

has been referred in the Affidavit filed by respondent while concealing

earlier part.

b) Old unapproved Drawing have been supplied to allege that order stands

complied with.

c) Maps appended with the said email, are in complete contradistinction

to the maps appended with the present Affidavit.

04.08.2025: Petitioner submitted before this Court that meeting of

concerned authorities was held on 18.07.2025 in which petitioner had

also participated and prayed that State be directed to get instruction with

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 14 -

regard to revised drawings whether the designs as approved by

Department were given to petitioner.

15. From the above sequence of facts, it is clear that the

drawings approved by the respondent in the meeting dated 7.5.2024 have

been supplied to the petitioner firstly on 14.5.2024 (Annexure R-1/2), and

then again on 4.10.2024 (Annexure R-1/4. (Annexures R-3/T and R-4/T)).

This fact has also not been denied by the petitioner. Even the email dated

13.6.2024, written by the petitioner to the respondent acknowledging

receipt of the plans and expressing gratitude for approval of the plans, is

not denied. The contention of the petitioner that the drawings Annexure

R-2/11 do not bear proper stamps and dates, et cetera are misleading as

the said Contractual disputes about which drawings ought to have been

approved, the correctness of conditions imposed by the Committee, or

alleged monetary claims under the Concession Agreement, are all outside

the four corners of the original Writ Court order.

16. At the risk of repetition, it is reiterated that the writ petition

was disposed of as “not pressed” after recording the limited statement of

the State that approved drawings, as per the decision of the Design

Approval Committee meeting dated 07.05.2024, will be supplied to the

petitioner within ten days. There is no other operative direction in the writ

order. In the present contempt proceedings, therefore, the only justiciable

issue is a narrow and objective one as to whether the drawings “as

approved in the meeting held on 07.05.2024” have been supplied to the

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 15 -

petitioner. From the facts recorded above, it is clear that even before the

present contempt petition was filed (10.03.2025), the State had:

(a)convened the Design Approval Committee meeting;

(b)approved the drawings as per the Committee’s decision;

and

(c)communicated the approval of the drawings to the petitioner by

memo dated 14.05.2024 Annexure R-1/2 and forwarded the

stamped plans on 04.10.2024 Annexure R-1/4. (Annexures R-3/T and

R-4/T).

17. In addition, the respondent has filed a detailed affidavit dated

28.11.2025, explaining the entire factual matrix and clarifying that the

only drawings ever vetted and approved are those transmitted by the

Senior Architect (North) on 25.08.2023 (Annexure R-2/11) and

subsequently stamped and dispatched on 14.5.2024/04.10.2024, and

reiterating that therefore, the order dated 20.09.2024 stands fully

complied with. The Writ Court had not directed the State to approve any

particular set of drawings (for example, the drawings dated 08.02.2022),

nor did it adjudicate upon the contractual legality of the conditions

imposed by the Design Approval Committee. The Writ Court only directed

that whatever drawings were approved in the meeting of 07.05.2024

should be supplied to the petitioner. It would appear that the grievance of

the petitioner in the present Contempt Petition is that:

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 16 -

a)drawings dated 08.02.2022, allegedly revised and final, have not been

“stamped and delivered”; and

b)the Design Approval Committee ought to have approved those

drawings instead of the earlier set. This is, in substance, a challenge

to the correctness of the decision taken by the Committee, and not to

the compliance of the order passed by Writ Court. The Writ order

does not entitle the petitioner to insist that its preferred drawings

must be treated as approved in law; it merely secures delivery of the

drawings actually approved by the Committee.

18. However, as the State has shown that the drawings which the

Committee in fact approved have been sent to the petitioner, the remit of

contempt ends. If the petitioner is aggrieved by which drawings were

approved, by the conditions attached (penalties, vesting of additional

rooms, insistence on ACF and Conditions Precedent), or by the refusal to

approve its later revised drawings, the proper remedy is an independent

writ or appropriate contractual proceeding, but not a contempt petition.

19. The order dated 01.10.2025 passed in the present COCP

notes the petitioner’s argument that drawings dated 08.02.2022 allegedly

approved by the Chief Architect on 26.04.2022, have not yet been

formally approved or supplied, and also records submissions from the

State’s side regarding the petitioner’s construction being at variance with

the approved plans and about non-payment of ACF. In this regard it is

clarified from the record that the Petitioner is relying upon letter dated

26.04.2022 by Chief Architect Punjab (Annexure R2/8). However, in this

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 17 -

letter itself the Chief Architect had referred to letter dated 14.03.2022

written by the petitioner to the Chief Architect (Annexure R-2/7); whereby

the petitioner had sent the revised designs to the Chief Architect vide said

letter dated 14.03.2022; and not on 08.02.2022 as alleged by him. Further,

in terms of the order dated 1.10.2025 passed by this Court, the

respondent has furnished a fuller, factual and satisfactory explanation by

way of the detailed affidavit dated 28.11.2025, clarifying that:

a)the petitioner’s revised drawings dated 08.02.2022 were never

finally vetted;

b)The only drawings ever approved are those transmitted by the

Senior Architect (North) on 25.8.2023 and approved in the meeting

dated 7.5.2024;

c)Vide memo dated 14.05.2024 the Committee’s approval and the

memo dated 04.10.2024 the stamped drawings were forwarded to

the petitioner; and

d)sets out the petitioner’s own letter of gratitude dated 13.06.2024

(Annexure R1/3) acknowledging approval.

20. In these circumstances, reference may be made to the law as

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that:

1)Contempt is not a substitute for execution or appeal. In

Niaz Mohammad v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 332,

the Hon’ble Apex Court held that where the directions of

a judgment have been substantially complied with, any

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 18 -

residual grievance must be worked out in appropriate

proceedings; contempt jurisdiction is not meant for

“enforcement of monetary or other civil rights” when

there is bona fide compliance.

2)Wilful and deliberate disobedience must be clearly

proved. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar, (1999) 7

SCC 569, the Hon’ble Court explained that for civil

contempt it must be shown that the disobedience is not

merely accidental or due to inability or misunderstanding;

if there is any genuine doubt about the scope of the order

or if compliance is reasonably arguable, contempt will

not lie.

3)Contempt cannot enlarge or vary the original order. In

Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5

SCC 352, and Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, (2002) 4

SCC 21, it has been repeatedly emphasised that the

Hon’ble Court, in contempt, may not read into the original

order rights or directions which are not expressly granted;

a party cannot, under the guise of contempt, obtain

substantive relief which it failed to secure in the

main proceeding.

4)Standard of proof akin to criminal proceedings. In Ashok

Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha, (2003) 11 SCC 1,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court described contempt as a

COCP-1774-2025 (O&M) - 19 -

quasi-criminal jurisdiction where findings of guilt must

rest on clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence of

wilful disobedience.

21. Thus, keeping in view the above noted factual and legal

aspect, present Contempt Petition is hereby dismissed.

22. Rule stands discharged.

23. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

12.12.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)

Divyanshi JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No