Farid Qureshi vs Satish Mathur
2012 Latest Caselaw 2310 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                Judgment Reserved On: March 26, 2012
                Judgment Pronounced On: April 10, 2012

+                 CONT.CAS. (C)1289/2006

    FARID QURESHI                                   ..... Petitioner
                           Through:   Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate

                           versus

    SATISH MATHUR                                  ..... Respondent
                Through:              Ms.Shobhana Takiar and
                                      Ms. Heena Takiar, Advocates

+                 CONT.CAS. (C) 1290/2006

    SHARWAN KUMAR GOEL               ..... Petitioner
               Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate

                  versus

    SATISH MATHUR                                ..... Respondent
                Through:              Ms.Shobhana Takiar and
                                      Ms.Heena Takiar, Advocates

    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                                ORDER

% 10.04.2012

1. The above titled two petitions complains of wilful disobedience by the respondents of order of 25th September, 2006 in W.P.(C)15014/2006 'Farid Qureshi Vs. Union of India & Ors. and W.P.(C) No. 15015/2006 'Sharavan Kumar Goel Vs. Union of India & Ors.' .

2. Vide aforesaid order of 25th September, 2006, while entertaining the writ petitions of the petitioners herein, a direction

CC.C. Nos. 1289 & 1290 of 2006 Page 1 to maintain status quo in respect of the subject premises was passed by this Court. According to the petitioners, in defiance of the aforesaid order of status quo of 25th September, 2006, the respondents herein have demolished the subject premises and this was noticed by the petitioners on 26th September, 2006 and some photographs to show the demolition have been annexed with these petitions.

3. With the consent of the parties, both the above captioned petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties in these two petitions, respondent's counsel was called upon to produce the record to support its plea of evicting petitioner's from the subject premises on 12th September, 2006 itself, i.e. on the date of the passing of the order by the Appellate Forum which is impugned in the accompanying writ petitions.

5. Accordingly, file No. D-12019/75/2002-EBA has been produced by respondent's counsel, which records as under:-

'Shri Farid Qureshi, ex-Proprietor of Shop No.7, PE Market and ex-occupant of residential premise No.13/78, President's Estate, and Shri Sharwan Kumar Goel, ex-Proprietor, M/S Girraj Kishore & Sons, 96-98, 'G' Point have prayed that the shop and residences which have been got vacated and the articles therein may be restored back to them till the writ petition being filed by them is decided.

It may be mentioned that on 12.9.06 the Government Standing Counsel had informed that the matters lying in the Court of Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, Addl. District & Session Judge has been dismissed and advised us to evict the occupants from the premises occupied by them. Accordingly, they were evicted by using police force on the same day on 12.9.06 at 03:30

CC.C. Nos. 1289 & 1290 of 2006 Page 2 pm. Since the said premises (except Shop No.7) were found locked, the locks were broken and inventory of the items made, which were later deposited with AE (B-II) and AE (B-IV) for safe custody. As for inventory of items found in Shop No.7, President's Estate Market, the materials were taken out from the shop in the presence of the occupants servant who was found sleeping inside the shop. As such we may not be responsible for it. This has been done in conformity with the instant advised received from the Standing Government Counsel'.

6. From the aforesaid noting of the respondents, it becomes evident that the petitioners were evicted from the subject premises on 12th September, 2006 i.e. prior to the passing of the status quo order of 25th September, 2006 of this Court.

7. At the hearing of these petitions, grievance was made by learned counsel for the petitioners that belongings of the petitioners which were there in the subject premises, have not been returned to the petitioners. This stands falsified from the file produced, which indicates that inventory of the items which were lying at the subject premises on the date of the eviction of the petitioners, was prepared and petitioners were called upon to collect the same.

8. Suffice it would be to state that no case for initiating proceedings for contempt of order of 25th September, 2006 is made out. Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed. Record of file No. D-12019/75/2002-EBA be returned to Ms. Shobhna Takiar, learned counsel for respondent.

                                                    (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                      JUDGE
April 10, 2012
rs

CC.C. Nos. 1289 & 1290 of 2006                                Page 3