Dismissing a contempt plea filed by Bholath MLA Sukhpal Khaira against the demolition of a portion of a wall and gate, the Punjab and Haryana High Court imposed a cost of Rs 6 lakh on Khaira after terming the petition a “misuse of the process of Court”.The High Court said, “If, in cases of genuine disobedience, costs can be imposed upon officials and recovered from their salaries, there is no reason why, in cases of manifest abuse of process such as the present one, the erring petitioner should not be saddled with exemplary costs payable to the affected officials.”The Bench of Justice Sudeepti Sharma held that Sukhpal Khaira had failed to make out any case of “wilful or intentional disobedience” on the part of the respondents.“The record prima facie establishes that the respondents acted in discharge of statutory duties for removal of alleged encroachment from public land/public passage. The controversy sought to be raised by the petitioner pertains essentially to the legality and propriety of such action, which cannot be adjudicated in contempt proceedings,” the Bench observed.Contempt plea termed misuse of court processThe Bench further held that the petition amounted to a misuse of the court’s process and an attempt to invoke contempt jurisdiction for purposes “alien to its true object and scope”.“Such petitions not only consume precious judicial time but also subject public officials to unnecessary litigation despite their having acted in purported discharge of statutory obligations,” the court said.Must Read | Uproar in Punjab Assembly over Congress MLA Sukhpal Singh Khaira’s ‘derogatory’ comment on women and Rs 1,000 doleWhile imposing a cost of Rs 6 lakh on Khaira, the Bench said that, “in order to preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings and to deter misuse of contempt jurisdiction, this Court deems it appropriate to impose exemplary costs upon the petitioner”.Story continues below this adThe court directed that the amount be paid to the respondents in equal shares. It also directed the respondents to furnish their bank account details to the petitioner for direct transfer of the amount.Khaira had filed the contempt petition alleging that a portion of the wall and gate forming part of his ancestral residential property had been demolished without following safeguards and procedural requirements mandated by the Supreme Court.State says structure was encroachment on public landIn response, the respondents — IAS officer Amit Panchal and the State of Punjab — filed an affidavit dated April 22, 2026, sworn by Kulwinder Singh Randhawa, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Nadala, Kapurthala district.The affidavit stated that the action undertaken by the authorities did not violate Supreme Court directions as the demolished structure constituted an encroachment on a public street and public passage vested in Gram Panchayat Ramgarh. It added that such cases fell within the exception carved out by the apex court itself.Story continues below this adCounsel for Khaira argued before the High Court that the respondents had acted arbitrarily and illegally with the sole object of harassing and politically victimising the petitioner, who belongs to the Opposition. It was further argued that no notice had been served on Khaira before demolition of the structure and that the action violated the Supreme Court’s directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures.Also Read | Khaira robs Cong of its agenda for budget session, gives much-needed ammo to AAPSenior Additional Advocate General for Punjab Anu Chathrath, appearing for the state, submitted that Khaira was in unauthorised occupation of a portion of public land and public passage belonging to Gram Panchayat Ramgarh, and that the impugned action was confined only to removal of encroachment from public property.Court cites Supreme Court exceptionThe state further argued that the case was squarely covered under paragraph 91 of the Supreme Court judgment in Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, which excludes unauthorised structures on public streets, roads, footpaths and similar public utility areas from the ambit of safeguards laid down in the judgment.Referring to paragraph 91 of the apex court judgment, Justice Sharma held that the Supreme Court had “consciously excluded” from the ambit of those safeguards cases involving unauthorised structures existing on public streets, roads, footpaths, railway land, river bodies and other public utility areas.Story continues below this adThe Bench also noted that the respondents had produced “substantial documentary evidence” to prima facie establish that the land in question formed part of a public street and public passage vested in the Gram Panchayat.On references in the petition to political rivalry, alleged harassment and registration of FIRs, the court observed that these “further demonstrate that the petitioner has sought to widen the scope of the present proceedings far beyond the narrow confines of contempt jurisdiction”.“Such an attempt to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by employing ingenious drafting deserves serious disapproval,” the Bench said, adding that contempt jurisdiction “cannot be permitted to become a tool for settling personal, political or administrative disputes”.