Delhi High Court
Sanjiv Jain vs Tajom Taloh, Registrar Co-Op. ... on 17 September, 2013
Author: Sudershan Kumar Misra
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 675/2013
SANJIV JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Jain, Advocate
versus
TAJOM TALOH, REGISTRAR CO-OP. SOCIETY..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amiet Andlay, Adv. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. NO. 13570/2013
Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed off.
CONT.CAS(C) 675/2013
1. The petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court
alleging non-compliance of directions issued by this Court on 21.07.2010 in
W.P.(C) No. 5398/97. The said directions were to the following effect:
"In our considered view, there can be no doubt that in
view of the restoration of the membership of the
petitioners a fresh seniority list would have to be
prepared as per the original membership. We are also
informed that there is only one authentic draw of lots
held under the supervision of DDA on 10.8.1988.
The Registrar, Co-operative Socieites to carry out
the necessary exercise of drawing up of the seniority list
within two (2) months from today and the current
management of the Society will give all assistance.
Needless to say that if the Society still does not
give the requisite assistance, that aspect can be brought
to the notice of the Court as it would amount to violation
of our direction.
On the fresh seniority list being prepared and it
being worked out as to how many flats are available for
allotment, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies will
forward the necessary papers to the DDA for holding a
draw of lots and the DDA will carry out the exercise
within one (1) month thereafter.
Needless to say that if any persons have been put
in possession of any flats in the mean time contrary to
the aforesaid seniority list, they would have to surrender
possession."
2. An examination of the aforesaid directions shows that the respondent,
i.e., the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, was obliged to carry out the
necessary exercise of drawing up the relevant seniority list within two
months, with the current management of the society providing necessary
assistance. Further steps, as indicated in that order, were also to be taken
once a fresh seniority list was duly prepared. In the same connection, the
petitioner is stated to have first moved CCP No. 616/2011 alleging non-
compliance, which, according to the petitioner was disposed off on
23.04.2012, on the statement of counsel for the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies to the effect that the petitioner's name has been included in the
new seniority list which was due to be forwarded to the DDA, whereupon
the Court directed that the same should be done within two weeks,
positively.
3. He submits that despite all the aforesaid directions, nothing has been
done.
4. Issue notice to the respondent to show cause as to why proceedings in
contempt be not initiated against him.
5. Counsel for the respondent enters appearance and accepts notice. He
has handed over a copy of an interim order passed by a Division Bench of
this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 5785/2012 & 6906/2012, wherein the statement
of counsel for the respondents to the effect that the exercise of drawing up a
seniority list of the members of the Maitri Nagar Cooperative Group
Housing Society is underway has been noted. Admittedly, the petitioner,
Shri Sanjiv Jain had also moved W.P.(C) No. 5398/1997 in connection with
the seniority, membership and priority of allotment with regard to the same
group housing society, with which the instant proceedings are also
concerned.
6. A perusal of the aforesaid interim orders passed by the Division
Bench of 26.08.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 5785/2012 & 6906/2012, shows that
for carrying out the very exercise which was mandated by the Court while
disposing off W.P.(C) No. 5398/1997, certain time bound directions have
been given to the respondent, which are clearly at variance with this Court's
orders in W.P.(C) No. 5398/1997; and the matter is posted for further
consideration by the Division Bench on 27.11.2013.
7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly, his client is not before
the Division Bench in the aforesaid W.P.(C) Nos. 5785/2012 and
6906/2012, and secondly, a number of individuals with dubious rights
appear to be resorting to the tactics of filing further petitions before this
Court with a view to thwarting the reliefs granted to the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No. 5398/1997.
8. Be that as it may, whilst it may be open to the petitioner to take such
further steps in the matter to impugn any such actions of third parties, as he
may be advised; the fact remains that specific directions have been issued
by the Division Bench on 26.08.2013 as aforesaid, pertaining to the very
exercise which the respondent was obliged to carry out in terms of the
orders passed by this Court on 21.07.2010 in W.P.(C) No. 5398/1997.
Furthermore, even the fact of the latter orders having been passed, and the
respondent's obligation to comply with the same, was also brought to the
notice of the Division Bench on 26.08.2013 before the aforesaid directions
were given by it on that date.
9. Consequently, to my mind, under the circumstances, it cannot be said
that the respondent is guilty of any wilful disobedience of the orders passed
by this Court on 21.07.2010 in W.P.(C) No. 5398/1997 or even on
23.04.2012 in CCP No. 616/2011. It follows, therefore, that the test of
Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which, inter alia, posits
the existence of, "wilful", disobedience of a court's orders, is not satisfied.
10. In that view of the matter, counsel for the petitioner states that he
does not wish to press this petition any further, and that he would advise his
clients to seek any other remedy that may be available to him.
11. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013
rd
