Delhi High Court
Ankur Mutreja vs Sn Singhal Secretary, Aechbs on 8 December, 2014
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Cont. Cas. (C) No.328/2012
Decided on : 8th December, 2014
ANKUR MUTREJA ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
SN SINGHAL SECRETARY, AECHBS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. K.K. Malhotra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner on account of
the alleged wilful disobedience of the order passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge on 23.12.2010, which reads as under :-
"Since it is pointed out that because of marriage season,
these activities are on the high, therefore, in these
circumstances, it may ensured by the respondent society
that if the utensils are washed in the said open area of
community hall premises, the said activity shall not cause
any noise as well as the collection of garbage and water
on the adjacent footpath and if the respondent cannot
ensure such ramification then they shall get the utensils
washed inside the building of community hall. These
directions shall remain operative till the decision of
learned trial court after hearing the respondent."
2. The petitioner is a practising advocate at Karkardooma Courts
and he has an office in the rear portion of the nearby property while as
the community centre is at a short distance from the office.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that as the respondent society
wash utensils on the footpath, where they have put a tap, the spill over
of the water makes the footpath wet and water gets accumulated on
the street. It has also been alleged that the respondent society, which
is running the community centre, was trying to raise a wall,
photographs of which have been placed on record.
4. On notice being issued, the respondent society has filed its
reply as well as an affidavit of Mr. S.N. Singhal, Secretary of the
respondent society, who has tendered unconditional apology for the
alleged violation of the order passed by the court. It has been further
stated by him that the utensils, in case are washed in the open area of
the community hall premises, the said activity shall not cause any
noise as well as collection of garbage or water on the adjacent
footpath and the respondent society would ensure that in case any
such activity is to be done, it will be done inside the community
centre.
5. The petitioner has filed his rejoinder and contested the claim by
placing on record photographs where some portion of the road has
been shown to be wet and minor accumulation of water having come
on to the road because of the improper drainage. These photographs
have been taken on 6.12.2014.
6. I have heard the petitioner in person, who is a lawyer himself
and the learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone
through the record which has become quite voluminous as the
contempt petition has been pending for the last more than four years.
7. The grievance of the petitioner essentially emanates from the
fact that because of the community centre is being utilized by the
residents of the locality for various festivities and marriage functions,
it is causing noise and some inconvenience on account of washing of
the utensils.
8. So far as the washing of utensils is concerned, not only an
apology has been tendered by the respondent society but they have
also specifically stated that they will ensure in future that the utensils
are washed inside the community centre and the wall has also not
been raised.
9. It is natural that some amount of inconvenience is bound to be
caused to the neighbouring residents on account of festivities or
marriages being held in the hall. When a person is living in a
community or in a society, more so in a city like Delhi where
marriage halls are very few in comparison to the requirement, certain
amount of inconvenience will have to be borne by the residents of the
immediate vicinity of the venue where such functions are being held.
Generally, a person would not complain of these inconveniences as at
some point of time, he may himself want to use the premises/hall for
festivities or marriages, etc.
10. Trivialities need to be ignored and the court need not take
cognizance of the same. It seems, in the instant case, that as the
petitioner is himself a practising lawyer and it does not entail any
extra burden on his resources and that is the reason he has taken
interest in prosecuting the matter by filing the present contempt
petition against the respondent and continuing with the same despite
the assurance having been given by the Secretary of the society that
all steps will be taken to ensure that no inconvenience by way of
noise, water accumulation, etc., is caused to the petitioner.
11. On assurance being given by the office bearer of the respondent
society, one can hardly say that there is any intention on the part of
the office bearers of the society in wilfully disobeying the directions
of the court. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel for the
respondent has stated that the aforesaid order, which was passed in
the revision petition, was an ex parte order and though they learnt
about the same belatedly yet, they tried to comply with the directions
passed by the court the moment they learnt about the same.
12. Having regard to the aforesaid totality of circumstances, I am of
the considered opinion that no prima facie case for wilful
disobedience of the order of the court is made out. Accordingly, the
contempt petition is dismissed and the contempt notice is discharged.
V.K. SHALI, J.
DECEMBER 08, 2014
'AA'
