Frivolous Contempt Petition Amounts to Abuse of Process – Punjab & Haryana High Court Slaps ₹50,000 Costs

“A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice… is not entitled to any relief” – Supreme Court principle invoked against petitioner - Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh delivered a stinging rebuke to what it termed as “a frivolous and vexatious litigation spree,” dismissing a contempt petition filed by a Zirakpur resident and imposing ₹50,000 in exemplary costs.

Justice Sudeep­ti Sharma, speaking for the Bench, ruled that the dispute between the petitioner, Payal Chaudhary, and the builder of Savitry Greens 2 housing project was “entirely civil in nature” and could not be dressed up as a case of willful disobedience of a Supreme Court judgment to attract contempt jurisdiction.

The petitioner had approached the Court under Article 215 of the Constitution and Sections 2(c), 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, alleging that the builder’s action in disconnecting her water supply violated the Supreme Court’s directions in Rajeeb Kalita v. Union of India decided on 15 January 2025. She claimed that the apex court had affirmed the principle that essential services such as water and electricity cannot be used as coercive measures to recover dues.

According to her, on 18 July 2025, water to her flat and several others was cut off “without any prior notice, court order, or lawful justification,” solely to compel residents to pay maintenance charges. She argued that such disconnection was not only unlawful but contemptuous, particularly when the builder had failed to provide basic amenities promised in the agreement.

Her notice to the builder painted a grim picture of persistent deficiencies – no flat-wise parking, absence of functional fire hydrants, non-operational sewage treatment plants, and even a fire incident on 17 September 2024 in her own flat, which she alleged was worsened by defunct fire safety infrastructure.

“The installed fire-fighting equipment was nonfunctional, outdated, and disconnected from any water source,” she stated, adding that she had suffered property loss worth ₹12–15 lakh.

The petitioner also cited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rulings that essential utilities cannot be withheld to force payment of maintenance dues. She maintained that residents had lawfully withheld maintenance charges “under protest” due to the builder’s decade-long failure to meet contractual and statutory obligations.

Justice Sharma, however, found no merit in the plea.

“The grievance raised by the petitioner stems from a private civil dispute between her and the private respondents. The petitioner has not placed any cogent material on record to establish even a prima facie case of willful disobedience or violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,” the Court observed.

The judge pointed out that despite being advised to pursue appropriate civil remedies, the petitioner had persisted with the contempt petition “without any tenable basis.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s caution in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 114 against “unscrupulous litigants who, devoid of respect for truth, resort to falsehood and unethical practices,” Justice Sharma reiterated:

“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 referred to Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470, which lamented that “the Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation,” and stressed the need for deterrence through costs, as underlined in K.C. Tharakan v. State Bank of India (2023).

“This petition is a stark example of such abuse,” the Court declared, noting that the time and resources of the judiciary “are finite and must be preserved for genuine grievances deserving of judicial intervention.”

To send “a strong deterrent message,” the High Court dismissed the contempt petition and directed the petitioner to deposit ₹50,000 with the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association within two months. The sum will be used for the construction and renovation of the Women Bar Room at the High Court.

In case of default, the amount is to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

The ruling is a reminder that contempt jurisdiction is not a tool for pursuing private vendettas and that litigants who misuse judicial forums risk both reputational and financial consequences.

Date of Decision: 24 July 2025