Ravi Bharti Siksha Samittee vs Mr.Madhukar Gupta & Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 2900 Del

*                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                               Cont Case (Civil) No.502/2005

%                               Date of Decision: 29.07.2009

Ravi Bharti Siksha Samittee                                     .... Petitioner
                     Through Mr.R.M. Sinha, Advcoate

                                         Versus

Mr.Madhukar Gupta & Others                       .... Respondents
                  Through Mr.Rajiv 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. (ORAL)

*

The petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court

for alleged violation of order dated 16th November, 2004 passed in Writ

Petition (Civil) No.3643/2004.

The Writ Petition (Civil) No.3643/2004 was disposed by order

dated 16th November 2004 on the basis of agreement arrived at between

the parties. It was agreed between the parties that DDA would fence

the area, possession of which is to be offered to the petitioner and the

entire cost for fencing would be borne by the petitioner. The

respondent/DDA had to indicate the cost of fencing which was not to be

challenged by the petitioner and which the petitioner was liable to

deposit. After fencing, the area was to be measured by the parties and

within 30 days after the measurement, the petitioner had to pay the

amount within 30 days thereafter. Two weeks after the receipt of the

amount, the respondent had to handover the possession of the area to

the petitioner.

The petitioner has contended that he has deposited a sum of

Rs.55,77,646/- in compliance with the order dated 16th November 2004

and the understanding arrived at between the parties; however, the

respondent has failed to fence the area and handover the possession of

the site to the petitioner. In these circumstances, petitioner has

claimed initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the

respondents, who are Vice Chairman of DDA, Director (Land) and

Executive Engineer (ED-III) of Delhi Development Authority.

The respondents have contended that they have the highest

regard for the orders passed by this Court and there is no deliberate or

intentional violation of the orders passed by this Court. It is contended

that the area could not be fenced nor the possession of the area could

be handed over to the petitioner on account of the status quo order

passed in respect of the same land in another writ petition being

W.P.(C.) No.3064/2005. It is also contended that the construction of

boundary wall could not be commenced on account of time required for

inviting tenders for the purpose of construction of the boundary wall.

Thereafter, status quo order has been obtained by the Resident's

Welfare Association in a separate writ petition where the Delhi

Development Authority has been directed to maintain status quo.

This cannot be disputed by the petitioner that in Writ Petition

No.3064/2005, a status quo order was passed on 24th May, 2005. The

petitioner has also sought his impleadment in the said writ petition and

he had impleaded as a party. Though there was delay in inviting

tenders for construction of the fence/boundary wall, however, that per

se will not amount to committing contempt of this Court in the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case. Thereafter, the land and

possession of which is to be handed over to the petitioner, has not been

fenced and handed over to the petitioner, on account of status quo order

passed by this Court, this will not be violation of the order passed by

this Court pursuant to an agreement/understanding arrived at between

the parties.

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. 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).

Having carefully considered the allegations made in the contempt

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

within the ambit of Contempt of Courts Act. No undertaking was given

to or accepted by the Court. The order was passed detailing the different

steps which were to be taken by the parties pursuant to an

agreement/understanding arrived at between the parties. The reason

for not starting the construction of fencing wall has been explained by

the respondent. This will not constitute committing contempt of this

Court. The possession of the property has not been given to the

petitioner on account of status quo order passed by this Court in

another petition filed by the Resident's Welfare Association where the

petitioner has also been impleaded as a party. In the circumstanced no

grounds have been made out for initiating Contempt of Court

proceedings against the respondent. The petition in the facts and

circumstances is misconceived and it is, therefore, dismissed. Notice

issued to the respondent is discharged and the parties are left to bear

their own costs.

July 29, 2009                                          ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'