East Punjab Railway Refugees ... vs The Commissioner Of Police And ...
1995 Latest Caselaw 176 Del

JUDGMENT

Cyriac Joseph, J.

(1) According to the averments in the civil contemptpetition, the petitioner is a House Building Cooperative Society and retired Government officials are members of the society. The petitioner society applied to the Dda for the allotment of about two acres of land situated behind Plot No.E-108, Greater Kailash Enclave, Part-1, New Delhi for the purpose of setting up a primary school. However the Dda refused to allot the land to the petitionersociety. The land was transferred to the Commissioner of Police for setting up a Police Station.

(2) The transfer of the land to the Commissioner of Police, the setting up a Police Station on the land, and the refusal to allot the land to the petitioner were challenged by the petitioner in Cwp No. 1298/90. The said Cwp was disposed of by this Court on 13/08/1993. By the judgment dated 13/08/1993in Cwp No. 1298/90 this Court prohibited the Dda and the Commissioner of Police from putting to use the above mentioned plot of land for any purpose other than for setting up a Primary School. However liberty was given to the respondents to modify the Zonal Development Plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 11A of the Delhi Development Act if they so desire. The respondents were given four months time for the said purpose. In the said judgment there was a further direction to the respondents to take decision on the application of the petitioner for allotting the said plot of land to the petitioner for setting up a primaryschool, within four months. A copy of the judgment dated 13/08/1993 was produced Along with the Ccp as Annexure-P1. The allegation in the Ccp is that the respondents in the Ccp have willfully disobeyed the directions contained in the said judgment and thereby committed Civil Contempt of Court.

(3) According to the petitioner, the disobedience is in three ways : (I)Only four months were given to the Dda to modify the Zonal Development Plan. No such modification was made within four months. Dda cannot make any modification to the Zonal Development Plan in respect of the particular plot of land after the expiry of four months from the date of judgment. However the Dda is taking steps for modification of the Zonal Development Plan for changing the land user of the particular plot from primary school to Police Station.This is violation or disobedience of the judgment dated 13/08/1993 of the High Court.(ii) The application of the petitioner for allotment of the plot of land was rejected by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner society is not a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860and that the land user of the specific plot is being processed for modification from primary school to Police Station. According to the petitioner these grounds are untenable and the rejection of the application is a violation of the judgment.(iii) The application of the petitioner society for allotment of the land was directed to be disposed of within four months from the date ofjudgment. However it was disposed of only by letter dated 1 3/12/1993 and there is a delay of one day in complying with thedirections. Even a delay of one day constitutes disobedience of the judgment.

(4) Coming to the first point, the stand of the respondents is that the stipulation of four months period in the judgment is applicable only to taking decision on the application of the petitioner for allotment and not to them dification of the Zonal Development Plan. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, the power to modify the Zonal Development Plan is a statutory power which should be exercised by the Dda in accordance with the statutory provisions contained in the Delhi Development Act. Having regard to the procedural formalities involved no time limit can be stipulated for exercise of such statutory power. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel that the Court could not have intended to stipulate a time limit in the matter of modification of the Zonal Development Plan. I do not agree with the stand taken by the respondents in this regard. Even though the statute does not prescribe any time limit for the exercise of the statutory power, the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is competent to stipulate a time limit for the exercise of statutory power in a given case. In other words the Court has jurisdiction to direct the Dda to take a decision on the question of modification of the Zonal Development Plan in respect of the land user of a particular plot of land which is subject matter of the dispute before the Court within a stipulated period. Even if the respondents hold the view that the Court cannot stipulate such time limit for modification of the Zonal Development Plan,they should have challenged the judgment stipulating the time limit. Having not done so, it is not open to the respondents now to say that no time limit can be stipulated by the Court for modification of the Zonal Development Plan. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that it cannot be possible to complete all statutory formalities for modification of the Zonal Development Plan within a stipulated period like four months. If that is the contention of the respondents,then they should have brought it to the notice of the Court while passing the judgment or they should have applied for enlargement of time. The practical difficulty in completing the procedural formalities within the stipulated period is not a defense available to the respondents since they have not approached the Court for enlargement of time. The bona fide of the respondents should be tested by their conduct. Being aware of the time limit stipulated by the Court and of the practical difficulties in complying with the order within the time limit, if the respondents decided not to move the Court for enlargement of the time, they were taking a risk and taking the Court for granted. The learned Counsel for the respondents then argued that the stipulation of four months period is not applicable to the modification of the Zonal Development Plan. I do not accept this contention of the learned Counsel. A plain reading of the judgment in Cwp No.1278/90 will show that the question .of modification of the Zonal Development Plan and the question of taking a decision on the application of the petitiorter for allotment of land were considered separately and independently by the Court.The stipulation of the four months period is stated not at one place, but at twoplaces. After giving liberty to the respondents to modify the Zonal Development Plan the Court added that the respondents were given four months time forcompliance. Thereafter the Court dealt with the application of the petitioner for allotment of land and directed that the decision on the application should betaken within four months. Therefore, I am of the view that by judgment dated 13/08/1993 in Cwp No. 1298/90 the respondents were granted liberty to modify the Zonal Development Plan in respect of the plot of land in question if they so desire, but such modification had to be effected within four months. This is what I understand from a plain reading of the judgment. I cannot accept the contention of the respondents that the Court did not intend any such stipulation of time. The stipulation of time can be under stood in the context of the case wherethe petitioner challenged the transfer of the land to the Commissioner of police for setting up a Police Station in violation of the existing Zonal Development Plan and the petitioner prayed for the allotment of the plot of land for a user in accordance with the existing Zonal Development Plan. Obviously, the Court wanted to have some definiteness regarding the user of the land in question, by the time DDA considered the petitioner's application for allotment. Otherwise the directions of the Court would have become meaningless and useless.

(5) Now the question is whether the respondents committed any civil Contempt of Court by not effecting modification to the Zonal Development Plan in respect of the plot in question within four months. The Court only granted liberty to the Dda to modify the Zonal Development Plan if they so desire. There was no mandatory direction to the Dda to modify the Zonal Development Plan.Therefore, by not effecting modification to the Zonal Development Plan in respect of the plot of land in question the respondents cannot be said to have disobeyed any direction or order contained in the judgment dated 13/08/1993 in CWPNo. 1298/90.

(6) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the effect of the judgment is that if the Dda desired to modify the Zonal Development Plan they should modify the Zonal Development Plan within four months and that they can not do it after four months in respect of the particular plot of land. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also prayed that the respondents maybe directed not to effect any modification of the Zonal Development Plan in respect of the particular plot of land hereafter since the time allowed in the judgment dated 13/08/1993 for the said purpose has already expired. I am not inclined to grant this prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for two reasons. (I)While dealing with the Ccr, I need not pass any anticipatory order restraining the respondents from doing something which may amount to Civil Contempt of Court. If and when anyone commits civil contempt and if it comes to the notice of the Court the matter will then be dealt with by the Court in accordance with law.(ii) The respondents have not so far effected the modification to the Zonal Development Plan. It is open to them, at any stage before effecting them dification, to approach this Court and to explain why more time is required to complete the statutory and procedural formalities and to seek enlargement of the time granted in the judgment dated 1 3/08/1993. It is not proper to deny to the respondents any such options available to them. This Ccp cannot be allowed to be used asa pre-emptive step against any possible future action of the respondents. Of course, the petitioner may oppose any application for enlargement of time, if and when such an application is filed. It is for the Court dealing with the application for enlargement of time, to consider such objections of the petitioner.

(7) Admittedly the respondents have proceeded on the basis that the four months time limit did not apply to the modification of the Zonal Development Plan. That is how they understood the order of the Court with the aid of legal advice from their lawyer. The files were placed before me for my perusal and I am satisfied that the respondents acted on legal advice. The legal advice given by the lawyer and the interpretation given by him to the directions in the judgment maybe wrong. But that is no reason for proceeding against the respondents for committing civil contempt because they have only acted bona fide on the basis of legal advice and have not willfully disobeyed any order. But since the matter has been raised in this Ccp and the effect of the directions in the judgment dated 1 3/08/1993 has been declared by this Court in this order, the respondents are expected hereafter to proceed on the basis of the declaration given by this Court in this order.

(8) I shall now deal with the second point. If the petitioner is of the view that his application for allotment was rejected on untenable grounds, he has to challenge the said decision of the Dda in appropriate proceedings. Even if the order passed by the Dda rejecting his application for allotment is a wrong or illegal order, it will not call for action under the Contempt of Courts Act unless it is shown that while taking the decision the Dda has willfully disobeyed any order of the Court or violated any undertaking given to the Court. Whether it is mandatory that a society should be registered for making application for allotment of land, or whether the petitioner society is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or whether registration under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 is sufficient, are matters to be considered when the petitioner challenges the decision of the Dda in appropriate proceedings. In the normal course the Dda is competent to reject an application for allotment of land on the ground that the land user of the plot of land is being processed for modification. If the contention is that such a ground is not available to the DDA in this case in view of the judgment in Cwp No. 1298/90, the petitioner may challenge the decision of the Dda in appropriate proceedings and get it quashed.Even a wrong rejection of the application will not attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

(9) Coming to the third point, there is dispute between the petitioner and the respondents on the question whether there was any delay in taking decision on the application of the petitioner society. Learned Counsel for the petitioner asserts that there was delay of one day whereas learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there was no delay. I do not propose to resolve this controversy and enter a finding since, according to me, it is not necessary for the purpose of taking a decision in this case. Even assuming that there was delay of one day in taking the decision on the petitioner's application, I am not inclined to take action against the respondents for the delay of one day. Firstly, the respondents bond fide thought that they had time up to 13/12/1993 to take the decision and,therefore, there is no question of any willful disobedience. Secondly the Court haste take a practical view and the delay of one day due to some misunderstanding or due to wrong calculation of the number of days has to be graciously condoned. Iam not satisfied that the respondents have committed any civil contempt on account of the alleged delay of one day in disposing of the petitioner'sapplication.In these circumstances the Ccp is dismissed subject to the observations made above.