Allahabad High Court
Krishna Mohan Prasad And 5 Others vs Vyash Narayan Umrao, Sdm And ... on 17 March, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 9
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1886 of 2023
Applicant :- Krishna Mohan Prasad And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- Vyash Narayan Umrao, Sdm And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Singh
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The present contempt application has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for punishing the Opposite Party for willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 26.07.2022 passed by this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.1279 of 2022.
3. The order passed by the writ Court reads as under :
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the respondent/Gram Sabha.
This Public Interest Litigation is preferred to have a direction for the respondents to get the respondent nos.6 to 13 evicted from the illegal possession over the public utility land.
Today when the matter is taken up, learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that the present P.I.L. is not maintainable as a complete procedure has been prescribed under Section 67 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 for removal of unauthorized possession/encroachment. It is further argued that Sub Rule (6) of Rule 67 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides that the authority concerned shall make all endevour to conclude the proceedings initiated under Section 67 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within a period of 90 days from the date of issuance of show cause notice. The aforesaid Rule is quoted below:-
"(6) The Assistant Collector shall make an endeavour to conclude the proceeding under section 67 of the Code within the period of ninety days from the date of issuance of the show cause notice and if the proceeding is not concluded within such period the reasons for the same shall be recorded."
To have such a relief, remedy is available to the petitioners under section 67 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006. This Court does not find any just reason to entertain this P.I.L. ignoring the remedy provided under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code.
The P.I.L., is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to avail remedy under the Code aforesaid.
In case, the petitioners initiates the proceeding under Section 67 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 before the concerned competent authority, the authority concerned is directed to conclude the proceeding within the time limit as provided Sub Rule 6 of Rule 67 of U.P. Land Revenue Code Rules, 2016. The aforesaid exercise be completed strictly in accordance with law and after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, if there is no legal impediment."
4. From perusal of the order passed by this Court it is clear that the Court had declined to entertain the PIL as there is a remedy provided under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The PIL was dismissed by the writ Court.
5. Recently the Apex Court in Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer and others Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association and another 2022 (1) SCC 101 has held that the while dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry. Relevant para 8 of the judgment is extracted hereas under :
"8. We are dealing with a civil contempt. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 explains a civil contempt to mean a willful disobedience of a decision of the Court. Therefore, what is relevant is the "willful" disobedience. Knowledge acquires substantial importance qua a contempt order. Merely because a subordinate official acted in disregard of an order passed by the Court, a liability cannot be fastened on a higher official in the absence of knowledge. When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a mental element. It is a deliberate, conscious and intentional act. What is required is a proof beyond reasonable doubt since the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Similarly, when a distinct mechanism is provided and that too, in the same judgment alleged to have been violated, a party has to exhaust the same before approaching the court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is well open to the said party to contend that the benefit of the order passed has not been actually given, through separate proceedings while seeking appropriate relief but certainly not by way of a contempt proceeding. While dealing with a contempt petition, the Court is not expected to conduct a roving inquiry and go beyond the very judgment which was allegedly violated. The said principle has to be applied with more vigor when disputed questions of facts are involved and they were raised earlier but consciously not dealt with by creating a specific forum to decide the original proceedings."
6. Further Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act provides that contempt may lie only when judgment, order or undertaking given to a Court is not complied with.
7. In the present case as the writ petition itself was dismissed and there was no undertaking on the part of the opposite party, no case for contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act is made out.
8. The contempt application being thoroughly misconceived is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.3.2023
Kushal
