Ram Chander Education Society vs Ashok Kumar Nigam & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3197 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            CCP No.665/2009

%                      Date of Decision: 17.08.2009

Ram Chander Education Society                         .... Petitioner
                   Through Mr.Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with
                             Mr.Sachin Midha,, Advocate.

                                 Versus

Ashok Kumar Nigam & Anr.                        .... Respondents
                  Through Mr.Rajeev Bansal, Advocate.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may be               YES
      allowed to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?                  NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in              NO
      the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

1. The petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against

the respondents, Vice Chairman and Deputy Director, Institutional

Lands on account of alleged violation of orders dated 22nd July, 2008

and 26th February, 2009.

2. The petitioner has filed Civil Writ Petition No.5205/2008 titled

Ram Chander Educational Society & Anr v. DDA seeking inter-alia

quashing of show cause notice dated 6th May, 2004 and withdrawal of

sponsorship letter dated 6th July, 2004 and a direction for declaring the

sponsorship letter dated 12th November, 2002 as subsisting, valid and

enforceable and further direction to the DDA and Directorate of

Education to change the sponsorship for allotment of land to petitioner

society for establishing senior secondary school in

Janakpuri/Vikaspuri, District West-B from zone 18 to 17 and issue a

fresh sponsorship letter in this regard and to allot the land to the

petitioner.

3. By order dated 22nd July, 2008 this Court had directed the

respondents not to dispose of the plot in favour of any other party, in

case the plot has already stands earmarked by the DDA for allotment to

the petitioner.

4. The application of the petitioner for interim direction in CM

No.9921/2008 was disposed of by order dated 26th February, 2009

holding that in view of the interim order passed on 22nd July, 2008 no

further orders are required on the application and the order dated 22nd

July, 2008 shall continue to operate in favour of petitioner till the

disposal of the writ petition.

5. The counter affidavit was filed by the DDA and a copy of the same

was given to the counsel for the petitioner on 13th August, 2009. The

DDA categorically took the stand in its counter affidavit that

recommendation for allotment of land to the petitioner society could not

be accepted as the same piece of land was allotted to another society by

the name of Florence Nightingale Society. It is further contended that

the allotment of Florence Nightingale Society was also cancelled on

account of various complaints and representations received by the

Lieutenant Governor for keeping the land green though specified use of

land as per the layout plan was for senior secondary school. It is further

contended that for the reason the land could not be allotted to Florence

Nightingale Society, the same was not to be allotted to the petitioner

society. The respondents have further clarified that no final decision

was taken for allotment of land to the petitioner society nor any land

was earmarked for the petitioner society.

6. The respondents in the counter affidavit also contended that

since the allotment of land by IAC 2003 came under the scanner of the

investigating agency and the policy of allotment of land at highly

concessional rate to the schools and other institution was proposed to

be reviewed, therefore, no further action was taken on the pending

application for the allotment. It is also asserted that the policy has been

changed for allotment at concessional rate to auction mode vide gazette

notification dated 19th April, 2006.

7. The petitioner has contended that they have learnt from "reliable

sources" that respondents have made the allotment of land to Sardar

Jagat Singh Chadha Charitable Trust, Rajouri Garden for setting up of

a school by the name of Shemrock Jagat Senior Secondary School and

have thus violated the order dated 22nd July, 2008 and 26th February,

2009.

8. The interim order dated 22nd July, 2008 is categorical that in case

any plot has already been earmarked by DDA for the petitioner, the

same shall not be disposed of in favour of any other party. From the

averments made by the respondent DDA it is apparent that no final

decision was taken for earmarking any plot in favour of the petitioner.

Rather the proposal for allotment of the plot in favour of petitioner was

found to be untenable as the said land had already been allotted to

another society Florence Nightingale which allotment was also cancelled

as the complaints were received for keeping the area green despite the

area being earmarked for a senior secondary school. In the

circumstances, it cannot be held that any area was earmarked for

allotment to the petitioner.

9. The plea of the petitioner that petitioner has learnt from reliable

sources is also utterly vague and on the basis of such vague plea it will

not be appropriate to issue a contempt notice to the respondents.

10. Exercise of power under Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 is

comparatively a rarity and has to be used sparingly and in the larger

interest of society and for proper administration of justice. Even mere

disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a "Civil

Contempt" within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Act of 1971. The

element of willingness and intention is an indispensable requirement to

take action. If two interpretations are possible and the action of alleged

contemnor pertains to one of such interpretations which will raise

doubts about the willful nature of conduct, if raised, contempt will not

be made out. The Supreme Court of India in the case Perspective

Publications (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1971 SC 221) has

observed at page 230, inter alia thus:

"The summary jurisdiction by way of contempt must be exercised with great care and caution and only when its exercise is necessary for the proper administration of law and justice." (Per Grover, J.) Contempt of Court is essentially a matter which concerns the administration of justice and the dignity and authority of judicial Tribunals. It is not a right of a party to be invoked for the redress of his grievances. It is not also a mode by which the rights of a party, adjudicated upon by a Tribunal can be enforced against another party. Moreover, if the matter, as in the present case, requires a detailed inquiry, it must be left to the Court which passed the order and which presumably is fully acquainted with the subject-matter of its own order. When the matter relates to mere infringement of an order, as between parties, it is clearly inexpedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction as a mode of executing the order, merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character. Contempt jurisdiction should be reserved for what essentially brings the administration of justice into contempt or unduly weakens it (vide (1964) 68 Cal WN 148, AIR 1951 Pat 231, AIR 1966 Mad 21 and AIR 1971 ALL 231).

11. Having carefully considered the allegations made in the contempt

petition, it is apparent that the action of the respondents does not fall

within the ambit of Contempt of Courts Act. The allegation of the

petitioner is that he has learnt from reliable sources which are utterly

vague. The petitioner before this allegation also had to allege that the

respondent had earmarked a particular plot for the petitioner, which

fact has been denied by the respondents contending that the proposal

for allotment had not become finalized and no plot was earmarked for

the petitioner, as the same was allotted to another society which

allotment was also cancelled on account of objections raised to keep

that area green. In the circumstances, it cannot be inferred that even

prima facie there is deliberate or willfully violation of the order passed

by this Court which is very categorical that in case the respondents has

earmarked any plot for the petitioner, the same shall not be transferred

to any other society during the pendency of the writ petition filed by the

petitioner.

12. The application in the facts and circumstances, is an abuse of the

process of law and is without any legal basis and the petitioner is not

entitled for the relief claimed. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

August 17, 2009                                    ANIL KUMAR, J.
'K'