Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    DR. KULDIP SINGH v. SH. KUMAR RAHUL, IAS

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

    213 COCP-6226-2025

    DATE OF DECISION: 02.07.2026

    DR. KULDIP SINGH … Petitioner Versus

    SH. KUMAR RAHUL, IAS ... Respondent

    CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

    Present: Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravinder Singh Rawal, AAG, Punjab. ****

    DEEPAK GUPTA , J. (ORAL)

    By way of this petition filed under Section 12 read with Section 2-A of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, petitioner prays for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for violating the order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by this Court in CWP No.14909 of 2025, whereby a direction was issued to decide representation dated 10.12.2024 of the petitioner within a period of six months after taking note of judgments in Medical Council of India Vs. Union of India etc., 2009(4) SLR 603 and Dr. Parveen Parkash Vs. State of Punjab and another.

    2. As per the reply filed by the respondent, the aforesaid order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) has already been complied with vide order dated 04.02.2026 by deciding the representation of the petitioner. The order dated 04.02.2026 has also been placed on record as Annexure R-1.

    3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing the order dated 04.02.2026, the respondent had already passed an order on 05.01.2026, the copy of which has already been placed on record. Learned counsel

    1

    further submits that at that time, no opportunity of hearing was granted to him and that while passing order dated 04.02.2026, only one paragraph has been added that the opportunity of hearing has been provided.

    4. A perusal of the reply would reveal that opportunity of hearing was duly provided to the petitioner on 21.01.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that opportunity of hearing was provided to petitioner on 21.01.2026. It is thus clear that order dated 22.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) already stands complied with. Therefore, no case is made out for continuing the present contempt petition. The same stands disposed of accordingly.

    (DEEPAK GUPTA)

    JUDGE

    02.07.2026

    sapna adhikari

    Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether reportable : Yes No

    2

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    DR. KULDIP SINGH v. SH. KUMAR RAHUL, IAS
    (Jul 2, 2026)