...
...
Next Story

Contempt of court: HC stays single-judge order holding 3 top Punjab officers guilty

The officers were additional chief secretary-cum-financial commissioner (forest department) Vikas Garg, local government principal secretary Ajoy Sharma and principal chief conservator of forests Raman Kant Mishra

Updated on: Nov 19, 2023, 08:02:16 IST
Advertisement

A division bench of Punjab and Haryana high court has stayed single-judge order holding three top officers — two IAS and one IFS officer of Punjab guilty of contempt of court.

The single-judge order had come on a plea filed by Bari Karoran gram panchayat in Mohali on May 18, 2023, seeking contempt proceedings for violation of court orders. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)
The single-judge order had come on a plea filed by Bari Karoran gram panchayat in Mohali on May 18, 2023, seeking contempt proceedings for violation of court orders. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The officers were additional chief secretary-cum-financial commissioner (forest department) Vikas Garg, local government principal secretary Ajoy Sharma and principal chief conservator of forests Raman Kant Mishra.

They had challenged October 12 order of single-judge bench of justice Arvind Sangwan which found them “prima facie guilty of violating the court orders as well as the undertaking given by them”. The single-judge bench had not pronounced quantum of punishment to these officers.

Appearing for the officers, state’s advocate general Gurminder Singh had argued that development activities that the petitioners were claiming to have been stalled were being carried out. They had also shown certain photographs showing the activity which the state was undertaking.

In the appeal, it was further argued that they were held guilty of contempt of court without appreciating documents on record as per which orders of the court stood complied with. It was also argued that appealants did not issue any letter in contrary to submissions in court and one inter-departmental communication about the eco-sensitive zone was being cited by the petitioners as violation of court orders, which in fact had no relation with the contempt proceedings.

 
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Hindustantimes wants to start sending you push notifications. Click allow to subscribe