Chandigarh, April 12 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has imposed a cost of Rs.3 lakh on a private construction firm, observing that the time has come when not only deterrent costs must be imposed upon government officials, but also on the frivolous private litigants. "If, in cases of genuine disobedience, costs can be imposed on 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 observed while dismissing a contempt petition moved by a firm. The petition was from M/S V K Constructions filed in February 2026 alleging that the petitioner firm was allotted civil work on Rohtak-Bawal national highway project and that was completed successfully. However, despite submissions of the bills for the same and a legal notice served on November 2022 seeking disbursal of the due amount, the same has not been released. Hence, the plea demanded contempt proceedings against the officials concerned and directions for disbursal of the same. However, during proceedings the court found that this petition from the firm is the second contempt petition against a civil writ petition order of February 2023 in which authorities were directed to decide representation about clearance of bills within three months. As the same was not done, a contempt petition was filed for non-compliance of 2023 order which was disposed of in May 2025 as National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) told the court that the representation has been dealt with. The court observed that present contempt plea filed in February 2026 petition is not maintainable. "Despite the fact that the previous contempt petition was decided, petitioner preferred to file the present contempt petition. Such conduct amounts to gross abuse of the process of law and unnecessarily adds to the burgeoning pendency of cases before this court," it observed. It recorded that normally when there is apparent contempt by the official respondents, this court imposes costs to be deducted from their salary for non-compliance of the order. "The present case is the set example of the litigants, who are in the habit of blaming/targeting the official respondents unnecessarily. A perusal of the file shows that there is no disobedience by the respondents, rather, they are doing their duties effectively and efficiently," it further recorded. The court underlined that contempt jurisdiction is required to be exercised with great caution and circumspection and only in cases where willful and intentional disobedience of an order of the court is clearly made out. The jurisdiction cannot be invoked to settle scores or to unnecessarily harass officials, particularly when the record reflects compliance with the directions issued by this court, it added. ".this court is firmly of the opinion that the instant petition constitutes a glaring instance of misuse of the judicial process. It is, therefore, incumbent upon this court to safeguard the sanctity of judicial proceedings and to prevent their exploitation by unscrupulous litigants. The time and resources of this court are limited and must be reserved for bona fide grievances that merit judicial consideration," it observed referring to some judgments of the apex court, wherein it has been emphasized that frivolous and vexatious litigation must be curbed with a firm hand. The court underlined that the repeated filing of meritless petitions not only results in wastage of precious judicial time but also causes unnecessary harassment to public officials, who are constrained to defend themselves despite having acted in accordance with law. "..in the considered opinion of this court, the time has come when not only deterrent costs must be imposed upon the official respondents but also upon the frivolous litigants. 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," it said and imposed a cost of Rs.3 lakh on the petitioner firm to send a "strong deterrent message"....