Delhi High Court
Jasjiv Singh Anand & Anr. vs Office Of Commissioner Of ... on 30 April, 2014
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 283/2014
JASJIV SINGH ANAND & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Arun Bhatta, Advocate.
versus
OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for R2/DSIDC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
% SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (Oral)
1. These contempt proceedings are predicated on the alleged non
compliance of the following directions of this Court issued on 02.07.2013
while disposing off Writ Petition (C) No.796/2013;
"1. In view of the orders passed in WP(C)
No.587/2013, the Respondents are directed to comply
with the order dated 25.08.2011 passed by the Estate
Officer and hand over the possession of the Shed
No.74, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi
to the Petitioners and execute the Hire-Purchase
Agreement in favour of the Petitioners latest within
60 days of the receipt of this order.
2. Writ Petition No.796/2013 is accordingly
allowed in terms of the judgment passed in WP(C)
No.587/2013."
2. It is contended that although the aforesaid orders of this Court
mandated that the possession of the Shed in question be handed over, and
Cont.Cas(C) No.283/2013 Page 1
the necessary Hire-Purchase Agreement be executed within 60 days, no
steps whatsoever appear to have been taken by the respondents.
3. Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why proceedings
in contempt be not issued.
4. Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent
No.2/DSIDC. He states that, as a matter of fact, an application, being CM
No.16420/2013, has been filed by the respondent No.2 seeking recall /
modification of the aforesaid orders passed on 02.07.2013, on the basis of
which, the relief was granted to the petitioner in Writ Petition (C)
No.796/2013; and that the matter is pending disposal. He further states that
in case the said application comes to be dismissed by the Court, the
respondent is bound to implement the aforesaid orders of this Court,
subject, of course, to such further orders that may be passed by any court
of competent jurisdiction.
5. Although I was inclined to dispose off this matter by accepting this
statement on behalf of the respondent, and to bind the respondent on terms
to implement the aforesaid orders in a time bound manner in case the
review application comes to be dismissed, subject, of course, such
directions that may be passed by any court of competent jurisdiction, so
that, in case the respondent fails to comply even thereafter, he would then
also have to answer to an additional charge of non compliance of a
separate undertaking to this Court; but counsel for the petitioner is not
satisfied. He seeks to press this petition on merits. From his arguments, it
appears that he wants these contempt proceedings to be kept pending to
await the outcome of the aforesaid application, and perhaps all further
orders in any other permissible remedy that the respondent may pursue, so
Cont .Cas(C) No.283/2013 Page 2
that the spectre of a contempt notice and punishment, may remain hanging
over the respondent's necks throughout.
Once adequate explanation has been given in response to a notice to
show cause, I do not consider it appropriate to set down a precedent
sanctioning such a course. To my mind, this would not be in accord with
the principles governing the exercise of contempt jurisdiction; and it would
also contribute to the growing arrears, unnecessarily.
6. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, since the respondents have
exercised their legal right to seek a recall / modification of the orders in
question, and that application is still pending, I do not find any ground for
initiation of contempt proceedings.
8. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
(Judge)
APRIL 30, 2014
dr
Cont.Cas(C) No.283/2013 Page 3
