Full Text
CONT.CAS(C) 283/2014
JASJIV SINGH ANAND & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Arun Bhatta, Advocate.
Through Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for R2/DSIDC.
JUDGMENT
1. These contempt proceedings are predicated on the alleged non compliance of the following directions of this Court issued on 02.07.2013 while disposing off Writ Petition (C) No.796/2013;
2. It is contended that although the aforesaid orders of this Court mandated that the possession of the Shed in question be handed over, and Cont.Cas(C) No.283/2013 Page 1 2014:DHC:2300 the necessary Hire-Purchase Agreement be executed within 60 days, no steps whatsoever appear to have been taken by the respondents.
3. Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why proceedings in contempt be not issued.
4. Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2/DSIDC. He states that, as a matter of fact, an application, being CM No.16420/2013, has been filed by the respondent No.2 seeking recall / modification of the aforesaid orders passed on 02.07.2013, on the basis of which, the relief was granted to the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No.796/2013; and that the matter is pending disposal. He further states that in case the said application comes to be dismissed by the Court, the respondent is bound to implement the aforesaid orders of this Court, subject, of course, to such further orders that may be passed by any court of competent jurisdiction.
5. Although I was inclined to dispose off this matter by accepting this statement on behalf of the respondent, and to bind the respondent on terms to implement the aforesaid orders in a time bound manner in case the review application comes to be dismissed, subject, of course, such directions that may be passed by any court of competent jurisdiction, so that, in case the respondent fails to comply even thereafter, he would then also have to answer to an additional charge of non compliance of a separate undertaking to this Court; but counsel for the petitioner is not satisfied. He seeks to press this petition on merits. From his arguments, it appears that he wants these contempt proceedings to be kept pending to await the outcome of the aforesaid application, and perhaps all further orders in any other permissible remedy that the respondent may pursue, so Cont.Cas(C) No.283/2013 Page 2 that the spectre of a contempt notice and punishment, may remain hanging over the respondent’s necks throughout. Once adequate explanation has been given in response to a notice to show cause, I do not consider it appropriate to set down a precedent sanctioning such a course. To my mind, this would not be in accord with the principles governing the exercise of contempt jurisdiction; and it would also contribute to the growing arrears, unnecessarily.
6. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, since the respondents have exercised their legal right to seek a recall / modification of the orders in question, and that application is still pending, I do not find any ground for initiation of contempt proceedings.
8. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA (Judge) APRIL 30, 2014 dr Cont.Cas(C) No.283/2013 Page 3