Shri Bihari Lal And Anr. vs Shri V.M. Bansal And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1433 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The contempt petition as been filed for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 30.07.1993, 21.01.1997 and 27.10.1997 passed in CW No. 4106/1991 and in review application 10/1997 filed in the said writ petition.

2. A further prayer is also made to restrain the respondents from evicting the bona fide residents of jhuggi jhonpri in Sawan Park until the directions made in the aforesaid orders are complied with.

3. The decision rendered by the Division Bench in CW No. 4106/1991 on 30.07.1993 dealt with the issue of allotment of plots to the occupants of the Sawan Park Colony and the draw of lots held for allotment in November, 1991. The Division Bench held that the project for re-settlement of weavers in Sawan Park was not confined to these weavers whose jhuggis were affected on account of construction of storm water drainage road passing through jhuggis. A writ of mandamus was thus issued directing to make allotment in the first instance to 650 persons who had been issued allotment cum demand letters. Liberty was granted to respondent DDA to re-check this list after due notices to all persons falling in the list of 650 persons on the basis of scheme that it was for re-settlement of all the weavers living in jhuggi jhonpris in Sawan Park earlier to 1985 and the list was to be finalised within a period of three months and allotment to be made within six months.

4. Applications were filed subsequently for implementation of aforesaid directions and in terms of the order dated 21.1.1997 it was noted that apparently respondent DDA had not carried out directions with respect to the persons other than 650 persons, who had earlier been found to have in their possession documents. The following directions was thus issued in the application:

"(a) display a list mentioning therein the names of 650 persons, who had been give allotment cum-demand letter, the names of 489 persons out of the same, identified by it for whom allotment cum demand letters are stated to have been issued and also those who have not been found eligible for allotment;

(b) with respect to the remaining persons respondent No. 1 will make similar exercise contained in order dated July 30, 1993 in finalising the list of the remaining weavers who had been living in jhuggi-jhopari's in Sawan Park prior to 1985, and have not been allotted any plot by the DDA, Municipal Corporation of Delhi or any other local authority in the Union Territory of Delhi and to whom allotment-cum-demand letters were issued and who made payment in terms of the allotment letter.

5. A review application No. 10/1997 was filed by DDA for reviewing of the order dated 21.1.1997 praying for direction 'b' aforesaid to be deleted. However, the Division Bench dismissed the review application noting that no further clarification was required in terms of the order dated 21.1.1997 and thus the following necessary directions had been made:

"(a) That the above lists includes people who are not bonafide residents of the Sawan Park weavers colony and;

(b) That this list does not take into account the bonafide claims of genuine residents of the cluster who were residing there, before 1985."

6. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 4 being the DDA it is stated that the name of first petitioner did not figure in any list prepared by respondent No. 4. The name of second petitioner did figure in the list prepared by respondent No. 4 but no demand cum allotment letter was issued to the petitioner. It is further stated that a survey of 949 persons had been carried out who were originally considered for allotment. It is also stated that in pursuance to the directions passed by the Court on 21.1.1997, a further survey of the area was made and alternative plots to 219 persons out of 299 persons who had been left out of the total 949 persons after re-checking of the record was made. It is also stated that re-settlement work in respect of weavers has been completed and nothing remains to be complied with.

7. The records have also been produced in Court today by the respondents showing that advertisements were published in the newspapers intimating that the list has been published and displayed. These lists were thus so published and displayed.

8. The records relating to petitioner No. 2 have also been produced and it is stated that allotment was cancelled since petitioner No. 2 failed to complete the necessary formalities.

9. Learned senior counsel for respondent No. 4 has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and Ors. , which discussed the issue of period of limitation within which an application of contempt can be filed. The expression initiation of contempt proceedings was considered in terms of Sections 17 and 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is held that period of one year would commence from the date on which the commission of contempt came to the knowledge where that had been concealed by fraud or dishonest conduct of the contemner. Learned counsel thus contends that in whatever manner the judgment is read, the petition filed by the petitioner in September 1999 would be barred by time.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner however relies upon the observation in para 48 of the said judgment dealing with the issue of continuing wrong or contempt and contends that in the present case there is continuing wrong and contempt.

11. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The contempt petition is filed in September 1999 for non compliance of orders passed in 1993 read with orders passed in 1997. Thus in terms of the judgment of Pallav Sheth Case (supra) admittedly the contempt petition would be barred by time.

12. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that it is a continuing cause of action, it is to be noted that the same is based on the fact that lists were actually not published and displayed in terms of the directions aforementioned passed by the Division Bench. However, the records produced show that list was displayed and in fact advertisement was also published. It may however, be noted that this happened post filing of the contempt petition.

13. In view of the aforesaid position, I feel it expedient to even consider the issue on merits. The directions passed by the Court clearly show that the case of certain persons had to be examined and the list displayed. An attempt of the DDA to get the directions reviewed failed. In view thereof DDA had to review the list and verify the claims. On verification the name of petitioner No. 1 was not found eligible to be included in the list while in the case of petitioner No. 2 originally demand cum allotment letter was issued. The case file relating to petitioner No. 2 shows that his case was considered and it was found that in view of the failure on the part of the petitioner No. 2 to complete the necessary formalities, he was not found eligible for allotment.

14. There is another aspect to the matter. In the present petition one is not concerned with the merit of the controversy but whether there is any willful disobedience of the orders of this Court. In terms of the order referred to by the petitioner, verification of list had to take place and list had to be displayed. There were some delay in doing the same but ultimately there has been verification and display of list. In view thereof, I am of the considered view that it is not a case of willful disobedience of the orders of the Court.

15. I do not find that any contempt is made out of the orders as stated by the petitioners in view of the aforesaid facts.

16. Contempt petition stands dismissed and contempt notices stand discharged.