High Court Imposes ₹50K Cost On Punjab Govt For Seeking Repeated Adjournments In Obtaining Sanction To Prosecute Ex-Chief Secy In Graft Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the Punjab Government for repeatedly seeking adjournments in a contempt petition.

The case pertains to a contempt petition filed by Tulsi Ram Mishra, alleging non-compliance with the order passed in September 2023, directing the state to forward all documents to the Centre for obtaining sanction to prosecute Punjab's former Chief Secretary Vijay Kumar Janjua, within a stipulated period. Janjua was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 2 lakh.

The High Court had then said that in case a sanction is accorded to prosecute, the trial court shall proceed in accordance with the law and conclude the trial expeditiously.

Justice Alka Sarin, while imposing the cost, noted, "Learned counsel for the State has repeatedly requested for adjournments on one ground or the other. Today yet another request for an adjournment has been made though it was made clear on 11.08.2025 that no further adjournment shall be granted."

During the hearing, Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, informed the Court that two letters in November 2023, and March, 2024, were sent by the Centre to Punjab for forwarding the complete proposal regarding sanction for prosecution. However, no action had yet been taken.

Background 

Tulsi Ram Mishra (petitioner) had lodged an FIR in 2009 under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-1, Mohali against Vijay Kumar Janjua as he was caught red-handed while accepting illegal gratification of ₹2 lakh  in the presence of two witnesses. 

The Governor of Punjab granted the sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, to prosecute Janjua in 2010. The said sanction was challenged by Janjua averring therein that the sanction had been granted by an incompetent authority which was dismissed. However, liberty was granted to raise all the points before the Trial Court as the discharge application was pending before the Trial Court.

In 2015 the officer was discharged on the ground that the competent authority for granting sanction to prosecute the officer was the Central Government while the sanction had been granted by the State Government, hence, the discharge order was passed for the time being for want of proper sanction with liberty to get the matter revived as and when a valid sanction was accorded by the competent authority.

Aggrieved by the order, a plea was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of by the High Court directing the State of Punjab to forward all documents pertaining to the consideration for grant of sanction to prosecute Janjua.

In the present case, the State counsel submitted that SLP has been filed by Janjua against the High Court order. On being asked as to whether the proceedings in the contempt petition have been stayed or the State had filed any Special Leave Petition, he responded by stating that neither any Special Leave Petition has been filed by the State nor any stay has been granted in the SLP filed by Janjua.

While adjourning the matter to September 08, the Court said, "no ground is made out to further adjourn the matter, however, in the interest of justice, adjourned to 08.09.2025, subject to payment of ₹50,000/- as costs to be deposited with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Legal Services Committee."

Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Vishnav Gandhi, DAG Punjab for respondent No.2.

Title: TULSI RAM MISHRA v. S. RADHA CHAUHAN & ANR

Click here to read/download the order