Nirmala Devi & Ors. vs Sh.Bhuwaneshwar Singh
1998 Latest Caselaw 207 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this contempt petition, alleging the violation of the order dated 21.3.1997, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ petition No.830/97.

2. The petitioner had filed the said writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Delhi Administration with regard to taking over the management of petitioner No.3 viz. the Managing Committee, Jan Kalayan, who were running a School at Khasra Nos.432,433, Village Ghonda Gujran Khadar, Ill aqua Shahdara, Delhi. A further direction in the nature of mandamus was sought for the respondent to hand over the vacant possession of the property including the land in the aforesaid Khasras. Along with the writ petition, the petitioners moved an application for interim stay, whereby an ex parte restraint was sought to the respondent from carrying on construction on the aforesaid plot. Further direction was sought on the respondent to hand over vacant possession of the property in question. It is on this application for interim stay that the learned Single Judge passed the following order:

"In the meantime, status quo as of date with regard to the property in question to be maintained till the next date of hearing."

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said order was passed in the presence of the counsel for the respondent-MCD. The petitioner No.3 alleges that to his utter surprise when he visited the premises on 5.9.1997, he found that the building in question was being demolished. The petitioner relies on certain photographs, which have been produced on record. The photographs show certain labourers, who appear to be removing bricks from the walls with crowbars.

4. The respondent/contemnor, Sh.Bhuwaneshwar Singh, Deputy Commissioner, mCD has filed an affidavit by way of reply. The respondent/contemnor has tendered his unconditional apology for the lapse that has occurred. The respondent has explained that the building in question had been declared dangerous in the year 1985, as a result of which the School had to be closed and all the students shifted to the adjoining MCD primary School. The respondent/contemnor has also produced on record letters written by numerous residents of the locality and the Local Residents' Association, complaining that the building, which was in dilapidated stage was so danerous that it could fall and posed a threat to human lives. It is stated that the building is abutting narrow streets, which are used by passers by in a thickly populated area. The respondent-Corporation therefore, had carried out works to strengthen the walls and for this purpose removed the loose bricks. Moreover, it is claimed that in the instant case, lapse occurred since the order of this Court was conveyed to the Education Department of the Corporation against, whom the petitioner had sought the main relief namely taking over of the School and for handing over the possession of the building to him. The works department of the Corporation, whose responsibility was to ensure that the dangerous building did not cause any damage and to take preventive measures, was not aware of this order. It goes without saying that it is not open for the respondent-Corporation to disclaim responsibility on the ground that the concerned department was not aware. The MCD is a single entity, who is to abide by the orders of this Court. However, considering the peculiar circumstances of this case, namely, the fact that the substantive relief sought by the petitioner was not against demolition/repair but against take over of the School as well as for handing over the possession of the building to the petitioner.

5. I am of the view that the status quo order, passed by this Court has to be understood in the light of the substantive relief sought by the petitioner. The action taken by the MCD in the instant case was in public interest and to avoid damage to any property or loss of human lives by removing the loose bricks in the portion of the walls, which could fall, and repairing the rest of it. From the photographs also, which have been filed by the petitioner, it is evident that the building was in a dilapidated condition. The building does not even have the roof.

6. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am inclined to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent/contemnor and to discharge the notice of contempt. At this stage, I may mention that the observations made herein would not come in the way of the petitioner, if he chooses to avail of any remedy admissible at law, for claiming compensation for the damage, if any caused to the premises.

The contempt petition is disposed of with the above observations.