Ramphal v. Sh. Naresh Kumar & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 04 Dec 2024 · 2024:DHC:9428
Manoj Jain
CONT.CAS(C) 1184/2024
2024:DHC:9428
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed a contempt petition as the respondent complied with the Court's order belatedly, holding that delay alone does not constitute contempt.

Full Text
Translation output
CONT.CAS(C) 1184/2024 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 04th DECEMBER, 2024
CONT.CAS(C) 1184/2024
RAMPHAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankit Singh Sinsinwar and Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocates
VERSUS
SH. NARESH KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rishikesh Kumar (ASC-GNCTD)
WITH
Ms. Sheenu Priya, Mr. Vikas Saini, Mr. Atik Gill, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Shukla and Mr. Sudhir, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
(oral)

1. Petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against respondent for not adhering to the specific directions contained in order dated 20.05.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No. 7018/2024. As per specific directions contained in aforesaid order, respondent no. 3 i.e. concerned SDM was directed to pass order in compliance of order dated 03.03.2023 of this Court in Dalip Singh & Ors. Vs.

GNCTD & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 11909/2022).

2. The direction was to pass an order within a period of four weeks.

3. Learned Counsel for respondent no.3/SDM submits that the concerned SDM has already been passed order in this regard on 11.10.2024. Indubitably, the order has not been passed within the timeframe but fact remains that the direction has now been complied with. CONT.CAS(C) 1184/2024 2

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has also been supplied with copy of the status report along with aforesaid order dated 11.10.2024.

5. As per the aforesaid order, the objections of the concerned persons have been rejected, being without any substance.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that pursuant to the aforesaid rejection, concerned Authority is now under obligation to take further necessary action in the matter.

7. Fact, however remains that the present petition merely seeks initiation of contempt and since the order has been complied with, nothing substantial survives in the present contempt petition.

8. Present contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner is always at liberty to avail any other permissible action in case petitioner feels that the requisite follow up action is not being carried out by the respondents.

JUDGE DECEMBER 04, 2024