Ankur Mutreja v. SN Singhal Secretary, AECHBS

1. This is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner on account of the alleged wilful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 23.12.2010, which reads as under:- “Since it is pointed out that because of marriage season, these activities are on the high, therefore, in these circumstances, it may ensured by the respondent society that if the utensils are washed in the said open area of community hall premises, the said activity shall not cause any noise as well as the collection of garbage and water on the adjacent footpath and if the respondent cannot ensure such ramification then they shall get the utensils washed inside the building of community hall. These directions shall remain operative till the decision of learned trial court after hearing the respondent.” 2014:DHC:6839

2. The petitioner is a practising advocate at Karkardooma Courts and he has an office in the rear portion of the nearby property while as the community centre is at a short distance from the office.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that as the respondent society wash utensils on the footpath, where they have put a tap, the spill over of the water makes the footpath wet and water gets accumulated on the street. It has also been alleged that the respondent society, which is running the community centre, was trying to raise a wall, photographs of which have been placed on record.

4. On notice being issued, the respondent society has filed its reply as well as an affidavit of Mr. S.N. Singhal, Secretary of the respondent society, who has tendered unconditional apology for the alleged violation of the order passed by the court. It has been further stated by him that the utensils, in case are washed in the open area of the community hall premises, the said activity shall not cause any noise as well as collection of garbage or water on the adjacent footpath and the respondent society would ensure that in case any such activity is to be done, it will be done inside the community centre.

5. The petitioner has filed his rejoinder and contested the claim by placing on record photographs where some portion of the road has been shown to be wet and minor accumulation of water having come on to the road because of the improper drainage. These photographs have been taken on 6.12.2014.

6. I have heard the petitioner in person, who is a lawyer himself and the learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record which has become quite voluminous as the contempt petition has been pending for the last more than four years.

7. The grievance of the petitioner essentially emanates from the fact that because of the community centre is being utilized by the residents of the locality for various festivities and marriage functions, it is causing noise and some inconvenience on account of washing of the utensils.

8. So far as the washing of utensils is concerned, not only an apology has been tendered by the respondent society but they have also specifically stated that they will ensure in future that the utensils are washed inside the community centre and the wall has also not been raised.

9. It is natural that some amount of inconvenience is bound to be caused to the neighbouring residents on account of festivities or marriages being held in the hall. When a person is living in a community or in a society, more so in a city like Delhi where marriage halls are very few in comparison to the requirement, certain amount of inconvenience will have to be borne by the residents of the immediate vicinity of the venue where such functions are being held. Generally, a person would not complain of these inconveniences as at some point of time, he may himself want to use the premises/hall for festivities or marriages, etc.

10. Trivialities need to be ignored and the court need not take cognizance of the same. It seems, in the instant case, that as the petitioner is himself a practising lawyer and it does not entail any extra burden on his resources and that is the reason he has taken interest in prosecuting the matter by filing the present contempt petition against the respondent and continuing with the same despite the assurance having been given by the Secretary of the society that all steps will be taken to ensure that no inconvenience by way of noise, water accumulation, etc., is caused to the petitioner.

11. On assurance being given by the office bearer of the respondent society, one can hardly say that there is any intention on the part of the office bearers of the society in wilfully disobeying the directions of the court. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the aforesaid order, which was passed in the revision petition, was an ex parte order and though they learnt about the same belatedly yet, they tried to comply with the directions passed by the court the moment they learnt about the same.

12. Having regard to the aforesaid totality of circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no prima facie case for wilful disobedience of the order of the court is made out. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed and the contempt notice is discharged. V.K. SHALI, J. DECEMBER 08, 2014 ‘AA’