S.C. Verma vs Lawyers Co-Operative Group ...
1991 Latest Caselaw 542 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) The petitioner has filed a contempt petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, inter alia, alleging that an order passed by the Joint Registrar (Arbitration) on 8th October, 1990 has been violated by the respondents.

(2) The petitioner is a member of a Group Housing Co-operative Society. On 18th September, 1990 a division bench of this Court had passed an order directing the Commissioner of Lands, Dda, to allot all the flats constructed by the respondent-society. These flats were to be allotted by a draw of lots on 12th October, 1990 which were to be conducted by the Commissioner (Lands) or by his nominee.

(3) It appears that there was a dispute pending before the Joint Registrar under Section 60 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act. This dispute was between the petitioner and the respondent-society and on 5th October, 1990 an application was filed by the petitioner requiring the Arbitrator to stay the draw of lots which was to be held on 8th October, 1990. According to the petitioner representative of the respondent-society was present and-the case was fixed for 8th October, 1990. On that day no one represented the society and an ex parte order was passed whereby the arbitrator ordered that one flat of 'G' category be kept reserved for the claimant till the disposal of the case. According to the petitioner the factum of the order being passed was made known on 12th October, 1990wbenthedrawwasbeinghe].d,but the said order was ignored and all the flats were allotted. The submiss'on of the petitioner is that the respondents have been guilty of committing contempt of the said order of the arbitrator. Without going into the question whether a Joint Registrar when acting in his capacity as an arbitrator can be regarded as a subordinate Court within the meaning of Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, in our opinion and in view of the facts 'of this case this petition is completely misconceived..

(4) The petitioner was aware of the fact that the draw of lots was being held on 12th October, 1990 pursuant to a direction given by this Court. The petitioner nevertheless chose to approach the arbitrator in an effort to get an Injunction which would have been contrary to the directions given by this Court. One of the prayers made before the arbitrator by the petitioner was that the draw of lots scheduled to be held on 12th October, 1990 should be stayed. In our opinion the petitioner was ill-advised to make such a request before the arbitrator when be was fully aware of the fact that the draw of lots was being held pursuant to a direction of this Court. The arbitrator, however, did not accede to this request but directed, nevertheless, that one flat In category 'C' be not allotted. The draw of lots was to be held by the Commissioner of Lands, DDA. The respondents to the present application an six but none of them is a Commissioner of Lands, DDA. Respondent No. 1 is a Group Housing Society. Respondent No. 2 is Secretary of the Society and respondent No. 3 is its President. The draw was not to be held by any one of these three. Therefore, the question of any disobedience on their part of the order does not arise. Respondent No. 6 is a representative of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. He was also not concerned with the draw of lots. Respondent No 4 is Dda and respondent No. 5 is a Deputy Director, who was present at the time of draw of lots. In our opinion there is no contempt committed by them for the simple reason that, as explained in their affidavit in reply, the draw was being held pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. It has been stated in the reply-affidavit that the respondents could not have decided as to which member should be excluded from the draw of lots. It has been stated in the reply filed on behalf of the Dda that the order of the Joint Registrar did not state whose name was to be deleted from the list of 30 members and if any one name was not included in the draw It may have been contrary to the decision of this Court. It is for the fear of committing contempt of this Court that the officials of the Dda proceeded to hold the draw.

(5) In our opinion the action of the Dda in holding the draw cannot be called in question. It is the petitioner who should have approached this Court if be wanted an order for reserving a flat for him because of the pending dispute before the arbitrator. This was not done. We are not deciding the merits of the controversy because we feel that there has been no intention or desire on the part of any of the respondents to deliberately disobey any judicial order passed. We are not satisfied that any contempt has been committed. This petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

(6) Interim order stands vacated.