Gurgaon: A discom official is facing court contempt after a petition was filed against him before Punjab and Haryana high court.The petitioner — Gurgaon resident Ramdhan — has alleged that Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBVN) executive engineer Vikas Yadav submitted false statements and misleading compliance reports regarding the disconnection of electricity supply at a construction site in the city that was ordered shut by Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM).The petition has accused Yadav of “wilful and deliberate violation” of court directions by repeatedly asserting that no electricity connection existed at the Sector 27 site linked to Rajdarbar Iconic Ventures Ltd.“The petition seeks initiation of contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the DHBVN official, along with directions to ensure strict enforcement of the CAQM closure order and disconnection of any electricity supply allegedly existing at the site,” said the petitioner.According to the plea, CAQM issued a closure direction on Dec 12, 2025, ordering immediate disconnection of power supply at the site over alleged violations of construction and demolition rules.The order was addressed to multiple agencies, including DHBVN and Haryana State Pollution Control Board. Despite this, the petitioner said, DHBVN filed a compliance report dated Jan 28, claiming that no electricity connection had been provided and that no power supply was found during inspection. Similar assertions were reiterated in a short reply before the HC and later in an affidavit submitted on May 18, 2026.Contradicting these claims, the contempt plea states that an electricity bill issued for a property in Sector 27 showed active consumption for Jan 2026, indicating that supply existed at or near the disputed premises despite the closure order.The matter was heard earlier on May 6, when the HC directed the state govt and DHBVN to explain the discrepancy between the electricity bill and the utility’s earlier stand.In the latest petition, the petitioner submits that the DHBVN officer continued to maintain the same position even after the court’s observations and despite admissions in impleadment applications filed by private parties claiming possession of parts of the land. The plea argues that the official’s conduct amounts to interference with the administration of justice and breach of an undertaking given to the court.
